User talk:Donner60/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 22 starting with closed talk page threads after January 13, 2022.

Hi

Can you please help me to make edits at the Calgary zoo because some one alaways removed it thanks! 2001:56A:7B14:CC00:DDF2:13F3:4A27:E79D (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have been unavoidably offline for several weeks. I see all of your edits were on January 14. They caused some controversy with a few other editors who pointed out some problems with the edits. They gave reasons for your edits being not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines and cited links to guideline/policy pages to show you how to make proper references to support new information in an article. A short block was even imposed on your continued editing since the advice was not taken into account. Since the information provided by others on your talk page was an adequate explanation, which I would have agreed with, and your contributions page shows no further activity since January 14, this appears to be moot. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

List of highest scores in figure skating

Good afternoon,

Just wondering what was wrong with my edit on List of highest scores in figure skating for you to have reverted it so quickly, since Nathan Chen did indeed set a new world record today in the short programme at the Beijing Olympics. I'm grateful to receive any guidance, as I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia.

IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I struck my message on your talk page because my revert, and accompanying message, was meant for another nearly simultaneous edit that was erroneous. Your edit was an attempt to provide the correct information. Occasionally, if edits are nearly simultaneous, the Huggle program will revert the wrong edit which results in the wrong person receiving a message. I know that the information you were trying to add is correct so I am sorry for the mixup. If the correct information has been removed by mistake, you or I can now add it back. Donner60 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bank of Venice

The idea that there was a Bank of Venice, or any institution in Venice that marked a paradigm shift in European banking, is an error of 19th century English historians that was debunked over a century ago.[1] It continues to be repeated by popular writers, but not by historians. Wikipedia should align itself with the latter. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I will accept your explanation but, of course, that might not prevent someone else from questioning it. If you wish to restore your edit, I will not revert it. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source

I'm a ngarabal native and these words were taught to me as a kid Jahkials2 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see the following Wikipedia guidelines and policies:
Wikipedia:No original research#Verifiability. "Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources."
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."
Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are not truth finders. Essay. "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."
Wikipedia:Verifiability. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Donner60 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Normie Rowe reliable source

Keep the comment deleted, but refer to the following source FYI:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/viet_app

I've rechecked the source (about 2/3 the way down) and found I'm in error (mea culpa). While Rowe's birthday of 1 Feb was not included in the original ballot of 10 Mar 1967, it was included in the subsequent ballot of 8 Sep 1967 for those who were overseas at the time of the first ballot (which Rowe was). Rowe returned from overseas in Jul '67, probably something he's regretted since.

There have long been rumours the ballot was rigged for various reasons, keeping politician's and wealthy businessmen's sons out for example. Whether this is true or not may never be known, but the rumour that Rowe was a likely candidate for rigging it to get him in persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1743:1100:701C:48AF:9E75:B3D9 (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation and reference. I have struck through my original message on your talk page because of the complicated background that you cite. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reassessments for start class per your user page

I'd be happy to take a look at any Civil War ones that you'd like me to. I saw the ping on the acw talk page, but I haven't had a chance to read it all through thoroughly yet. Hog Farm Talk 11:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been busy with the talk page discussion on the end of the American Civil War on the Talk:American Civil War and just noticed your post here. As you can see there, I have added two long threads with information and citations entitled 1 Timeline of Major Events of the Conclusion of the American Civil War and Amnesties. 2. Historians on the End of the American Civil War. I have added these to the talk page of Conclusion of the American Civil War as well because I think they may be useful for any additions, corrections, clarifications or citations there. I plan to return to Talk:American Civil War with what I hope will be my last substantive comment and analysis of the end date for the Civil War later in the week. I will be quite busy for the next few days.
I very much appreciate your offer. I will take you up on it. I need to go over them carefully before I name any of them. While I am sure there are some out there that will be candidates for reassessment, I do want to be sure they don't need a little clean-up or a few additions - especially if any have been significantly modified in the interim. I should be able to do this over the next few weeks. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
@Donner60: - Ping me whenever you come across one. I've expanded my personal library quite a bit over the last year, so if you're looking for a source or details for something I can see if anything I have is useful. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda. It is always nice to hear from you. I see from your talk page that you have been quite busy, especially with DYK. Your contributions to Wikipedia are wonderful. Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Vicksburg

Also pinging BusterD - any thoughts on trying to make a push for Vicksburg campaign to GA and maybe above? It'll be a big undertaking, and it's in poor shape right now - more space is given to the minor side affair at Snyder's Bluff than the two frontal attacks on Vicksburg in May, the fighting at Helena, Arkansas is under the heading "Louisiana operations" for some inexplicable reason, and there's poor/messy sourcing everywhere. Sourcing-wise, I've got Foote, Groom, Kennett's bio of Sherman, some of Catton's stuff, Carter's Final Fortress, Ballard, Miller, Shea & Winschel's Vicksburg is the Key, some miscellaneous stuff that'll cover the naval aspects, Bearss's Fields of Honor, Christ's Civil War Arkansas 1863 (for Helena), Grabau's monograph on Raymond, and Winters's The Civil War in Louisiana (for the Louisiana stuff). I could probably pull it to GA with those sources, although it might be a bit of a big undertaking for one person (I'm no Hal Jespersen).

It may be best to collaboratively draft sections in userspace somewhere and then add the sections into the article. I've done work with in other articles for a couple of the canals, Arkansas Post, Grand Gulf, Raymond, Jackson, and Big Black River Bridge, so that might be useful as starting points. I'd wait to start on this until I got around to writing Little Rock campaign, which I've been promising to do for some time, but I should be able to throw some decent focus on Vicksburg once I get through that.

Any thoughts? The background section scares me the most; I don't even know where to start on that besides Ft. Sumter or maybe Ft. Donelson I guess) Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@BusterD and Hog Farm: A good idea. The Western Theater tends not to get as much attention, as you know. I have been mostly offline and doing a little research offline due to a family member's surgery (hip replacement) and some other chores, which I expect will continue off and on for about another week or two. I want to bring the end of the Civil War date to a close and just made a brief post on the American Civil War Talk page about doing that soon. After that, although I have started a few new articles, I have nothing that I feel I really want to do next so I should be able to give this a careful look soon. It is too bad that the end of the war date required so much time and research about a single fact, though I did learn a few things. Perhaps you will wish to draw in a few others; or perhaps not at the outset. Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@BusterD and Hog Farm: I might add that I have the following books on the Vicksburg Campaign specifically as well as a few books about the naval campaigns on the rivers and some of the more general works or overviews such as Foote, Catton, McPherson and Eicher.
  • Arnold, James R. Grant Wins the War: Decision at Vicksburg. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. ISBN 978-0-471-15727-4.
  • Ballard, Michael B. Grant at Vicksburg: The General and the Siege. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-8093-3240-3.
  • Ballard, Michael B. Vicksburg, The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0-8078-2893-9.
  • Beck, Brandon H. Holly Springs: Van Dorn, The CSS Arkansas and The Raid That Saved Vicksburg. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-60949-049-2.
  • Bearss, Edwin C. with J. Parker Hills. Receding Tide: Vicksburg and Gettysburg, The Campaigns That Changed the Civil War. Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4262-0510-1.
  • Carter III, Samuel. The Final Fortress: The Campaign for Vicksburg 1862–1863. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-312-83926-0.
  • Frazier, Donald S. Blood on the Bayou: Vicksburg, Port Hudson and the Trans-Mississippi. Buffalo Gap, TX: State House Press, 2015. ISBN 978-1-933337-62-3.
  • Frazier, Donald S. Thunder Across the Swamp: The Fight for the Lower Mississippi, February 1863–May 1863. Buffalo Gap, TX: State House Press; [College Station, TX]: Distributed by Texas A&M University Press Consortium, 2011. ISBN 978-1-933337-44-9.
  • Fullenkamp, Leonard and Stephen Bowman and Jay Luvaas. Guide to the Vicksburg Campaign. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998. ISBN 978-0-89587-088-9.
  • Miller, Donald L. Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2020. ISBN 978-1-4516-4139-4. First published in hardcover 2019.
  • Shea, William L. and Terrence J. Winschel. Vicksburg is the Key: The Struggle for the Mississippi River. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2003. ISBN 978-0-8032-9344-1.
  • Smith, Timothy B. Champion Hill: Decisive Battle for Vicksburg. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2004. ISBN 978-1-932714-00-5.
  • Solonick, Justin S. Engineering Victory: The Union Siege of Vicksburg. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0-8093-3391-2
  • Winschel, Terrence J. Triumph & Defeat: The Vicksburg Campaign. New York: Savas Beatie LLC, 2004. ISBN 978-1-932714-04-3. First published Campbell, CA, Savas Publishing Co., 1999.
  • Woodworth, Steven E., and Charles D. Grear. The Vicksburg Campaign, March 29–May 18, 1863. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-8093-3269-4. Donner60 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The only other ACW editors who I can think of off the top of my head who have been active lately are Kges1901 and Djmaschek. My inclination is to probably work on this section-by-section. I'm afraid that it'll become disjointed if it isn't worked on from top to bottom. I guess the first thing to start on is going to be trying to figure out what the general structure would look like, and if the work is going to be done on a subpage, in my userspace somewhere, or directly into the article as we go. IMO the structure of the Louisiana sections needs to tie into the general flow more, and be less disjointed. There's also a lot of weighting issues IMO: Snyder's Bluff, Goodrich's Landing, and the Duckport Canal probably warrant way less weight. I'd be surprised if it was earlier than the middle of next week before I could really effectively start though. A July 4, 2023 TFA would be amazing, but I don't know if that's a realistic time frame. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Funny, I just wrote up a regiment that was on the transports at Snyders Bluff. I think this can be realistic if we organize our efforts and break it down into smaller pieces, after all we are covering less articles here than MILHIST's successful Operation Majestic Titan on battleships. I also have access to Bearss' Vicksburg trilogy, while Tim Smith's recent trilogy of books (Early Struggles for Vicksburg, Union Assaults at Vicksburg, and Siege of Vicksburg) and Earl Hess' Storming Vicksburg (UNC, 2020) are on Project MUSE through The Wikipedia Library. I would suggest that we base are efforts off the most detailed scholarship like Bearss' and Smith's efforts, and other recent academic works rather than pop history like Groom and now-dated Catton. Hog Farm, I was just about to write up Little Rock campaign as well, and actually reading was reading the relevant chapter in Christ's book yesterday. Looking at my university library, I've also got Edwin Bearss' rare The Battle of Jackson May 14, 1863, The Siege of Jackson July 10-17, 1863 and Three Other Post-Vicksburg Actions Kges1901 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I can get Woodworth's The Vicksburg Assaults, May 19-22, 1863 from a local university library, although the county library is mainly stuff I'd advise against using. Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't been very active the last few weeks. RL isn't a hobby, unfortunately. I do think we're still untangling the mess made when just one editor was writing most of the content. Not Hal's fault; there were very few models for FA work at the time, and the sources were more than sufficient for that time in Wikipedia's history. I'd hold Chattanooga is a bigger mess than Vicksburg but agree this is a very worthy target for improvement. I'm glad to see all these newer sources listed above. Majestic Titan was a success for two wikiprojects (let's not forget WP:SHIPS), and we won't have that much cross-project help here. BusterD (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of Operation Majestic Titan, I've put together a table at User:Hog Farm/Vicksburg campaign using Template:Campaignbox Vicksburg Campaign but excluding the sinking of Cairo. @Kges1901 and BusterD: - Of 22 articles in the table, we currently have 1 FA and 6 GAs. One of the GAs (the siege article) was promoted in 2009 and needs a fair bit of work, two of the GAs (Big Black River Bridge and Grand Gulf) are some of my earliest work and need a somewhat hagiographic CSA unit history replaced with a better source, and the other three GAs (Arkansas Post, Milliken's Bend, and Jackson) are IMO okay for GA status but would need additional sourcing to get higher. The FA (Raymond) was promoted earlier this year and should be fine. Full disclosure: all of the GAs/FAs except the siege I'm the primary author for, so there may be issues I'm not seeing besides the source limitations of whenever I was writing them. Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Seems pretty workable then. Thanks to the interlibrary loan system, I think we can access pretty much all of the recent books that we could use to expand the articles. I would strongly recommend using the interlibrary loan system because it allows one to obtain books for free and only a library card is required to use it. In my experience, it has taken books at most a couple weeks to arrive after I have requested them. Kges1901 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, BusterD, Kges1901, Djmaschek, and TwoScars: I am adding User:TwoScars, who might have some interest, and may or may not have some time to consider this, to the pings. As Hog Farm notes, this will take a while so "nose to the grindstone" would not seem to be a requirement for contributing to this or getting it done quickly. I am glad Hog Farm added a user sandbox page for work; that seems the best approach and may avoid some duplicate work.
I have only read the background so far but "military situation" is not the only background topic; in fact, it is not the focus of much of the section. Without looking back at it, there is the importance of Vicksburg economically and strategically, the geography, politics, Union Army command conflicts and maneuvering, previous attempts to take Vicksburg, mainly by the Navy and perhaps a few other things. Several organized subheadings could help without necessarily needing to add too much verbiage. This would seem the right article to address such general matters so a little more detail would not seem to be overdoing it.
I don't minding using older sources if points have not been superseded but I think the new ones definitely need to be used. My experience is that limited sources sometimes can lead to unnecessary controversy. Unless anyone thinks it is a hindrance to progress, I may add a few citations that I think could help both the current campaign article and the draft. I sometimes am moved to look for quick citations if I think I can find them for facts asserted that need initial or bettering sourcing in an article.
FWIW, I hadn't added a few recent acquisitions to my book list. Also, I recently separated into topics for quicker recognition so I might miss a few more general works. I already had the two other recent Smith Books. I also saw that Hess's book was on sale for about half price on Amazon, so I ordered that. I also have the books that Hog Farm mentioned by Bearss, Christ and Winters.
Some years ago I had Project Muse and JSTOR access through Wikipedia but gave them both up since I did not seem to be using them enough to justify taking one of the limited number of spots. Recently, I have found a few articles of interest on JSTOR. It has open access to much out of copyright content and some public domain content. It also is continuing reading access to 100 articles per month, which was started during the pandemic. It means that the reader needs to take notes since subscription is still necessary to download articles and quotes can't be cut from the screen. Still, if one can determine how to get the advanced search function to actually narrow searches down to a limited number of really relevant articles, it is valuable. I have a little trouble limiting the search so I am willing to look only at articles that I think may be promising sources. The subscription cost is more than I want to pay. If Wikipedia's access is now more available, which I suppose I should have checked first, that would be great. Otherwise, all one needs to do is register with an e-mail address and a password to get reading online access to JSTOR.
Are we looking to improve all of the articles about the campaign, or only the campaign article, or only the campaign article first? Now that I think of it, some of the same edits or extended versions of them probably also would help improve the articles. I can't evaluate whether it would slow down reaching the first objective. I don't have experience on a wide-ranging project of that sort as an example.
I have some thoughts on the lack of activity on, and state of, American Civil War articles but I will leave those for another time. In general, I'll just note that it has been written on Wikipedia pages in the past that some contributors want to start articles and for various reasons may not be interested in expanding or improving them. Some may have been and perhaps still may be discouraged for various reasons. I have drifted among topics more than once for various reasons and I think others have. Real life can intrude to a greater or lesser degree for nearly everyone, of course. Some other reasons are hinted at in other posts above. Etc. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll probably "lurk" in the background and maybe help a little. I have the Eicher and McPherson books. Also Chernow's Grant, and Jeff Shaara's Civil War Battlefields (autographed copy). My wife and I actually visited Vicksburg National Military Park about 10 years ago. Right now I am working on getting Battle of Shiloh, Battle of Charleston (1862), and Indiana Glass Company to GA. Because Shiloh has so many views, I am working in a sandbox and will request that people informally review the sandbox before I make any changes. TwoScars (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • For Project Muse and JSTOR, anyone who meets the criteria here can get access. These are easy to maintain if you are an active editor. Kges1901 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I've been approved for that with the wikipedia library. Need to get caught up on some stuff but should be able to start chipping away at things with this project soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: Helena is at GAN now; I'll try to pick off one of the minor Louisiana actions or Snyder's Bluff next. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Somehow, I managed to get copies of volumes II and III of Bearss's Vicksburg trilogy for under $20 bucks each so that'll be useful for me in tackling some of these battles. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

From Maurice Magnus talk page

I made footnote 2 less confusing, but it remains confusing. I changed it to read, "A diary excerpt is published in Gienapp, William E., ed. The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001, pp. 313-314 ISBN 978-0-393-97555-0. Taken from Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas, eds., The Diary of George Templeton Strong, vol. 2 (New York: The McMillan Company), pp. 600-601; vol. 3, p. 14." One source of confusion was periods instead of commas between an author's or editor's name and a book. I changed the periods to commas. If pp. 600-601 refers to vol. 2 of The Diary, then what does vol. 3, p. 14 refer to? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Were you able to read this at my talk page? That is, did you receive an email alerting you to it? I paste it here in case you did not. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Hope 23 is a more healthy year for you. ϢereSpielChequers 00:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to being more active here in 2023. Donner60 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Adapted from {{Season's Greetings}}
CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Season's Greetings from Iggy the Swan

Thanks and I wish you the same! Donner60 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
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, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 09:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello Donner60, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.

Happy editing,

I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas

and a very happy and healthy New Year,

Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia,

Davey2010Talk 11:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Seasons Greetings to you too! 😊

Happy Holidays