North Shoreman

Tom, I've reverted the Whig Party vandal again, and left a fourth-level warning. Since this is apparently a static IP, I'll pursue a long-term block if they do it again. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

What do you want from me?come to 30 years war Talk.82.49.34.193 (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

My issue is that the text added is too poorly written to communicate useful information to a reader. Others have problems with your interpretation of the sources. First, I want you to stop reverting other editors -- at least four editors disagree with your text. Next I want is for you to discuss on the article's discussion page exactly what you're trying to say and specifically show what language in the sources support your conclusions. Finally, don't add anything back until there is a clear consensus of editors to do this. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is reverting main references .79.49.192.139 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I asked you to stop reverting other editors without consensus -- you obviously refused. What's the point in attempting to communicate further with you? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Update: After reading Wikipedia guidelines I am currently attempting to find a mentor. When I have a Mentor, I look forward to posting a few articles which may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. I have set up the Wikipedia account, and user talk page. MikeWilkins (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Next week when I have more time I will forward important information on Sojourner-Truths name. I will also attempt to learn the method required by Wikipedia. It looks like I need to insert all points of reference. Thank you and best regards. Mike Wilkins.MikeWilkins (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Tim1965#Homestead strike. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tom, I came across this edit request in the talk page for Leo Frank and am wondering if you know where this text (paragraph 2 of Abduction and lynching) was sourced from. I see Dinnerstein mentions 175 miles, and Frey mentions seven cars (rather than eight) went to Milledgeville, but I don't see one source for everything in the related text, nor do I see it in the sources mentioned later in the paragraph. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since your residence is "on the Ohio side of Lake Erie in the western suburbs of Cleveland", would you be willing to help me with an Ohio-related project? For 3 years, I've been working on getting illustrations of all municipalities and townships statewide, and as you can see from my project-tracking page, User:Nyttend/Ohio, the only counties with unillustrated locations are in the Western Reserve. If you have a camera good enough to take simple pictures (e.g. countryside for a rural township, a residential neighborhood for a community, a city downtown), that's all I'm asking. If you'd like to help but you have questions, please let me know. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

we are very close to getting Andrew Jackson promoted to featured article. We have worked together in the past on a couple of presidential articles and I thought you might like to take a look at the FA review and see if you believe it is worthy of supporting for promotion. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I recall, you have made contributions on articles on lynching. There is discussion going on at Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings because some editors want to refer to other events, such as the Chinese massacre of 1871 in LA, to say that the New Orleans event was not "the largest mass lynching in US history." I think this is an inappropriate classification of deaths in race riots as lynchings (because people were hanged) and tried to point out the difference between race riots (which the 1871 LA event was) and lynchings. Perhaps you could add perspective, as well? Parkwells (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

As a historian pursuing a PhD degree, I’m rather concerned by the reliance on secondary sources. I understand that may be acceptable to Eiki but shouldn’t a higher standard be held?

If we are going to call an organization all these terrible things, shouldn’t we be using their words to confirm it? Ed Sebesta for instance is a well know historical hit man, yet we are using his word as a source authority.

As I have been working on my degree I have been distressed by the politicization I have seen in my discipline. Historians don’t want to simply record events anymore. They (we) want to be activists, place modern motivations on long dead people and get our 15 minutes of fame. The sources quoted in this article fit this discription too well. In other words, I see a whole lot of opinion but little to no primary evidence based fact.

To conclude, I really think all the opinion needs to be removed and a simple recording of fact be placed instead.

Thank you. Thalomen1 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a research paper - it's an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. And such a source relies primarily on secondary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

An encyclopedia is supposed to be a trusted source, based on both primary and secondary dart sources. Forgive me but your explanation doesn’t make sense to me.

If wikipedia not going to be as reliable and fact based as we can make it, why bother? The UDC page is not a reliable source and has much more in common with a trash hit piece. Honestly, it seems to me if that’s the stNdard it’s setting itself up to nothing more than biased, unreliable, opinion based pulp. Or at least the digital version of pulp. Shouldn’t we set a higher standard?

If what your saying is accurate, and secondary sources are all that matter, Wikipedia is about the worst source of information imaginable. Thalomen1 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I provided you with useful links that you should spend some time with before trying to make further edits. This link (WP:WPNOTRS) is the most relevant to your comments. It clearly states, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It also states, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Tom, Thanks! I did look through them and I just find myself stunned. I appreciate you sending the information, Im just saying I find Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" highly questionable and extremely subjective. I don't know many people who consider Ed Sebesta reliable. The man is a hack of the worst sort. Yet he's given authoritative status on several Wikipedia pages. At any rate, Im not going to try to make wiki something it isn't. Im just rather disillusioned with wikipedia. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalomen1 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've been keeping an eye on a particular editor, and this recent, large edit of theirs, to an article with which I have little familiarity (but whose talk page you have recently edited) is one that I cannot evaluate. I am also confounded as to the intent of the editor's recent edits, which have been reverted. All I'm asking is that some other eyes look the edit over. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you aware the quote is no longer in the article? I was surprised. deisenbe (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1990 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

The edit I contributed to this page is the most common version of the song I've heard. I think the page is incomplete without it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.32.71 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

In 1792 Washington Ran For Re-Election As A Federalist And Won But In 1788 He Ran As Independent And Won Jed Mek 25 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Source? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

If You Litteraly Search In Wikepidia Federalist Party And Look In Elections It Shows You That In 1792 George Washington Was A Federalist Jed Mek 25 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Reply on the article discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I’m Sorry I mean in Electoral History In The Federalist Party Wikepidia Jed Mek 25 (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Again, reply on the article discussion page for the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your attention is called to the deficiencies called out in the note above an article upon which you have either worked or left a comment during the past two years. You are invited to correct those deficiencies if you can possible do so. Otherwise, the article may be deleted or severely truncated. The article is History of African Americans in Los Angeles. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I see I edited the article once almost two years ago. Thanks for your interest, however. I will add the article to my watchlist, but I doubt I'll do much more than contribute to discussions if they arise. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

good goats are for good wikipedia users

Boomom99 (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

The correct way of writing the snake subspecies' common name is Thayer's kingsnake. It's even mentioned as such in the References.

Therefore, I don't think that I'm vandalizing the article, merely fixing it to what it should be.2600:1700:7E31:5710:DCB5:7FA1:EE89:FE7E (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll take you at face value -- thanks for correcting me. Realize, though, that the best thing to do is change the title of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear North Shoreman, I noticed you changed some of my articles please check your email at you earliest convenience and email me back.

Dr. Joseph Rodgawskiti

I replied on your talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, I think you were the fifth editor to revert, not the third. This edit war has been persistent and long lived. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Dear North Shoreman,

I thought you might be interested to know that someone is making another "Hitler killed people therefore anything he says is relevant anywhere" argument on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpine_race#Adolf_Hitler%27s_opinions_on_Mussolini_are_meaningless_and_should_be_removed

Have a nice day - Hunan201p (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

My contribution wasn’t vandalism or meant to be “disruptive” or “unconstructive”. It is common knowledge within the community of historians of the American party system that the Whig Party is also (at the very least in part or indirectly, though many would dispute such a minimal characterization) descended from the Federalist Party as well as the National Republican and Anti-Masonic parties, just as the Republican Party is largely descended from the Whigs. In fact, it is through the Whigs that the G.O.P. is declared an “indirect descendant” of the Federalists by renowned historians such as Edward J. Larson as well as social and political scientists such as Seymour Martin Lipset. You should look at the sources provided in relevant articles on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.134.33.163 (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Normani. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Dak To. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, my minor alteration of the summary table of the Battle of Belmont article was incorrectly reversed by you for no reason given. My minor edit changed the incorrect summary that the Battle of Belmont was a "Union victory", when it in fact was not and no book I've read has ever made that claim. The south claimed victory and the northern press 'lamented defeat' in the aftermath of Brig Gen Grant's retreat back to Cairo. It actually explains why it was a Confederate victory in the last part of the article. I'm not sure why you insist it was a Union victory as the source that was linked is now dead and no longer active, when the battle resulted in no loss of territory held by the occupation force of General Polk. It's like claiming that the Confederates won the Battle of Shiloh because on the first day they took most of the Union positions but that ignores the events that followed in which a counterattack resulted in defeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurefilmmaker (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Copied the above to the article's talk page for discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The First Bank of the US article should not suggest uncertainty about the name of Girard's bank that did not exist. Girard was a banker who, unusually for the time, did business under his own name. Here's a check drawn on the bank during his lifetime. People called the bank Girard's bank in conversation because that's what it was, but there was no uncertainty about the actual name. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moved to article talk page and responded there. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why do you keep suppressing discussion at 'McCarthyism?' Please note that if you are attempting to suppress freedom of speech in order to influence the outcome of elections, you could be charged at some future date with treason.--171.33.197.192 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Note -- Above IP has now been blocked for their antisemitic posts at the McCarthyism discussion page.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you want to believe an idiot, I can't stop you from doing it. I'm only interested in one thing that makes you believe an idiot (Sokolov). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please tell me about "Weeks 2004". What is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.155.64.26 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Moved discussion to article's talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your explanation. It's nice to communicate with people who are ready to help. I will now know about quoting. Thank you also for prompting to read this book. A bit even funny, that the only (!!!!!) the "historian" whom he quotes is Sokolov. Here's superhistory. :) Россиянин2019 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about my shameful edits, I will make constructive contributions next time. 71.184.142.128 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, You recently removed by edit to the Midwestern United States page for being "unconstructive". I do not think this is the case. At its current state the article makes it seem like all of Illinois is a Democrat state, while actually very few counties are Democrat. I just feel as an Illinoisian it is my duty to point out that there is more to my home state than just Chicago.

108.69.178.124 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC) A concerned IllinoisianReply

I replied on the article's talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply

Hi Tom, I'm curious if you remember what Osborn meant in this section when he says that the notes were written in the third person rather than the first. As an IP in the talk page mentions, it seems to be in the first person. If you're not sure, do you have any objection to it being removed, maybe substituted with a mention of Henry Alexander? Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's not an event. A factor, but not an event. it has to have a date if it's an event. deisenbe (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed this at the template talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. Sent at 08:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spencer Wells on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Winona Ryder on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Michelle Williams (actress) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello North Shoreman. I was looking through the edit history in the American Revolutionary War article, (and Talk page) and noticed that you were once quite involved in the debates. Currently we are debating whether we should refer to the Hessians as mercenaries or auxiliaries. The discussions start here and continue here. Any opinions and insights you can offer are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

You might also be interested in a merge proposal taking place here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:George Floyd protests on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Any assist on your part, or a referral to an Admin with a possible interest, would be appreciated, viz.: American Revolutionary War is rated variously across three related projects: (1) B-class, Top-importance at WikiProject American Revolutionary War; (2) Start-class at WikiProject Military History, demoted from C-class anonymously after an upgrade request from C-class. (3) C-class, Low-importance by Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team/ v0.5.

- The ARW page had an average daily pageview of 5,761 for the year-to-date 10/09/2019 last year, increased to 7,020 this year-to-date, with spikes July 4th at 31,000 and 66,000 respectively. The PAGE VIEW status shows the Start-class from a Project without an importance rating for the article, NOT the B-class from seven projects rating it Top-, High- and Mid-importance. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Although each of the two principal editors over the past eight months, TheVirginiaHistorian and Gwillhickers, are qualified to rate the article B-status, we seek ‘another set of eyes’ to confirm our progress and suggest avenues of further improvement before applying for a ‘Good Article’ review among the nine WikiProjects following the article.

B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Redundant footnotes at each cite have been removed, over 45 items. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”. REMOVED vandal footnotes referencing nonsense, Apple-apps, et al, & WP:blocked Lulu-published works, identified self-published websites for future Talk-page removal. B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is reduced to five paragraphs of summary material from the article. The body is reorganized into six topically focused sections, with half the previous TOC sections. B4. Free from grammatical errors.

B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Article top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed over 15% to “readable prose size” by using copyedits and three substantial moves of text-footnote-references to wp:Talks at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War. To accommodate contributors, much detail is maintained in article “Notes” with a HUGE Kb count in an effort to stabilize the article, avoid edit wars, and slow the additions of Talk sections. * also see ARTICLE ISSUES paragraph below *.

- ARTICLE SCOPE is taken from two Jimbo criteria for wp:editor consensus at wp:due weight, for ARW and sister articles: (1) Britannica, one of the “commonly accepted reference texts” here, and

- (2) PROMINENT ADHERENTS for the American Revolution as a civil-war-rebellion among British subjects in North America, with peace made exclusively between them at the Anglo-American 1783 Peace of Paris. These include thirteen (13) distinguished scholars recognized by the History Pulitzer Commission: Bernard Bailyn 1968, Daniel Boorstin 1974, John J. Ellis 2000, Robert Middlekauff 1983, Forrest McDonald 1986, Richard White* 1992, Gordon S. Wood 1993, Lance Banning 1996, Jack Rakove 1997, Joseph J. Ellis 2001, Daniel Richter* 2002, David Hackett Fischer 2005, and lastly Larrie D. Ferreiro* 2007, who is sometimes misinterpreted by wp:editors. :: * - finalists. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

B5. NEW Supporting infobox and images. Our collaboration at wp:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop published a NEW COLLAGE at Infobox, three images related to the article Top-hat “about military actions primarily”. NEW PORTRAITS: two of the three British CiCs in America; War Chief-Colonels with regular British & US commissions; Mississippi R. conquerors with independent commands: Spanish General Galvez and Virginia Colonel Clark. NEW MAPS: North American Indian tribes & languages; British and Spanish claims, French cessions immediately prior; King’s Proclamation Line and parallel Indian Treaties; NEW SECTION American Logistics & landing scene.

- NEW BALANCE. pro-British political image; state-house and 1st Continental Congress scenes; American victory in South scene; British fleet Hudson scene; French-gifted USN ship; Dutch credit in caption at HMS Serapis scene; French fleet at Newport RI; British at Charleston; Galvez with Spanish at Pensacola; (first-last) USS Alliance image; pair portraits for Vergennes of ancient regime & Lafayette of Enlightenment French; Ms. Hart captures 6 British infantry; pair portraits of British Tory-Am-war & Whig-Am-peace Prime Ministers; George III in Speech from the Throne robes for American independence, peace and trade.

- NEW SUB-SECTIONS. British off India; British off Saintes, Caribbean; British defense of Gibraltar scene. AFTERMATH, Territory section: paired portraits of of Jay for evacuating British forts & US Gen. Wilkinson for a Spanish agent; scene of Revolutionary graves with mass grave at Saratoga. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

(1) Nature of the American War: At Military History Project, reviewer deprecated article for Infobox not restricting participants to “Belligerents” of nation-states declaring war, as at War of the Austrian Succession. Reviewer an others at that Project Talk would not entertain parallel between ARW and Spanish Civil War “combatants”. In the ARW, besides belligerents and co-belligerent nation-states with declarations of war, page editors argued to include additional combatants: American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, British-side “Hessians”.

- (2) Scope of the American War, wp:editors have advanced a "Global American Revolutionary War" that by their POV historiography, takes place after October 1781 Yorktown, and is prosecuted without Congress knowledge, consent, or participation of its commissioned officers; but beyond Congress co-belligerents overlap with the ARW. Theirs is a "Global-ARW" extended in not merely by timeline overlap, but supposedly by a documented "spread" --- after no American replacements for regiments ending their enlistment, furloughing all Continental regiments home without pay, selling off or gifting US Navy ships for past-due Congressional debt, and Anglo-American Preliminary Peace. "End of the ARW" all hinges on Absolute Euro monarchs making peace with Britain, formally at the Versailles Palace outside Paris; them alone by diplomacy in an overseas palace, without Congress or Parliament, with Anglo-American peace terms agreed to and unanimously ratified by Congress 15 April 1782, without a shooting war in progress anywhere in America.

- But there was war prosecuted against Britain by France and Spain after June 1779 under the Bourbon Family Pact and their Aranjuez Convention, Articles 5 & 7 for imperial expansion at British expense. These war aims were pursued at odds with the treaty terms of the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Alliance, Art. 8 that provided for ending war against Britain at "tacit" British acknowledgement of American independence. Mahon 1890 calls the second war against Britain by Euro great powers as the "Bourbon War of 1778", but the term does not seem to be currently fashionable. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Andy Ngo on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19 on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a Military Project member interested in the American Revolutionary War. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:PragerU on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gina Carano on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Goths on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Gettysburg Address for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Drew Pinsky on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Infobox person on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Arameans on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1960 New York mid-air collision on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi North Shoreman! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over six months.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in six months.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|North Shoreman|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name subscribed to the FRS, you may be receiving this message on your new username's talk page still. If so, make sure your new account name is subscribed to the FRS, using the same procedure mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi North Shoreman,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi North Shoreman,

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Donner60 (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply