Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Feel free to leave your comments or questions and I will be glad to respond here. I often am away but will otherwise be prompt. Hoppyh (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoppyh,

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) 16:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I no longer include publisher locations in citations unless a reviewer forces me to. I just don't think they're useful to the reader. In many cases, they've changed (even when publisher is still in business), they can get contact info on the web and what's the reader going to do with the address once they get it? Write a letter? Visit? /rant. That being said, I have no objection to their being added.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: I think you are right-my thought was just compliance for FA purposes. Hoppyh (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed in your edits to presidential articles that you generally put punctuation within quotation marks in a sentence. The MOS:LQ portion of the style menu prescribes the use of "logical quotation", only placing punctuation within quotation marks when the source has it that way. (I acknowledge this goes against writing style used outside Wikipedia.) —ADavidB 16:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ADavidb and ADavidB: Well, Happy New Year to you too! My grammarian mentor and wife, and I, her loyal pupil, are devastated by this news! I am sure she will not sleep for weeks, which means nor will I! Shall I say, her word, concerning the WP rule, is "obtuse?" I will be glad to comply going forward, though I refuse to make any retroactive changes. Seriously, thanks for advising me. I regret I was unaware of this. Hoppyh (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making aware was my goal. I do know it grates against many. As for pinging, it may be because my user name has a lower "d", though I sign with an upper "D". —ADavidB 20:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Adavidb: Thanks again. Trying the ping with the lower "d". I have gone back through Harding and made changes per the above. I don't want to take up your time further, but if you like, go through Harding and change anything you think is wrong–this would serve to get the article right and also I can check what you correct and it will help me get up to snuff. Just a suggestion, not a have-to. Happy NY! Hoppyh (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC) PS - I don't expect you to check the sources! Hoppyh (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you for your contributions to Lincoln. Something that is missing from that article is, that 80 years before the Geneva Conventions were drawn up Lincoln created his own to deal with Minnesota War Crimes of 1862. His application of them is what commuted the executions of 263 instead of the popular explanation, the intercession of Bishop Whipple. Lincoln's consternation and delay caused him to arrive at a process that made the trials, War Trials. There is no documentation that Whipple actually accomplished anything. It was Lincoln's intellect and reasoning that produced the condemned list by separating War Crimes from Conventional War. The irony of that is that the Geneva Conventions were in response to the Holocaust and Lincoln is being painted with the Holocaust for those hung for war crimes. I expect anything I add to Lincoln will be deleted and expect that if you find merit to any of this you will know how to add it. ThanksMcb133aco (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcb133aco: I recommend that you take your suggestion to the Lincoln talk page for discussion there which will need to precede any additions to the article. Make sure you have at hand the requisite WP:RS. Thanks and good luck. Hoppyh (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have troubled you.Mcb133aco (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)mcb133acoMcb133aco (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Thank you for you submission. Interesting subject. Suggest only using very limited quotes (one or maybe two small quotes). The phrase "not only" does not belong in an encyclopedia article and this is written like an advocate on her behalf so be careful. An encyclopedia article is dry and straight forward (no editorializing). Please provide page numbers for the sources and another source or two would be helpful. Great start though!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sarah Embry Harrison and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sarah Embry Harrison, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoppyh! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • @S0091: I cleaned it up per your advice. The Williamson source is the only one I've located, however. Thanks for your time on this.Hoppyh (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I will let another reviewer take a look. I find its best to get different perspectives. Are you familiar with the WP:Wikipedia Library? I think you have been here long enough and have enough edits to qualify for membership and they have some great resources. S0091 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HenryTemplo was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sarah Embry Harrison and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sarah Embry Harrison, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HenryTemplo (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate very much your time in looking at this.Hoppyh (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from United States Declaration of Independence into Benjamin Rush. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently an ongoing dispute at Talk:Andrew Jackson regarding a number of statements in the lead. As a significant contributor to the article, I invite you to participate. If you don't want to do so, no problem. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hoppyh. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sarah Embry Harrison, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]