User talk:47thPennVols

Greetings, I saw your edit to Reading, Pennsylvania and noticed your interests. "We" are always looking for editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Please drop by and take a look.--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to the

Military history WikiProject

! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several
  detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics
  .
• We have a number of
  task forces
  that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 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) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, 47thPennVols, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to have a new member interested in military history. Let me know if ever you need any help or experience any problems. You are of course also welcome to contribute to our WiR talk page. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons. Focus on: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/Opt-out list . Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "47thPennVols", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent a group rather than an individual person. Shared accounts are not permitted. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Diannaa: Thanks so much for reaching out and for the welcome. I've actually been a member of Wikipedia since October 2015, and have had the same username since that time. My username does not represent a group, nor is it a shared account. I chose this username in 2015 in honor of an American Civil War regiment since one of my major areas of research is American Civil War History. So I don't believe that I need to request a change of username since my username doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. Again, many thanks for reaching out. Kind Regards, 47thPennVols (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for confirming it's not a shared account. That was my main concern. Best, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: You've been such a great help to me that I'm happy to return the favor. (I've attended conferences on child soldiers, and would say you've done an admirable job with a very difficult subject. So, first, thank you. Not many folks would want to write about this very depressing, but important and underreported subject.) Second, I agree with you that it's B-Class, and would happy to re-classify it that way. Before I do, there are a just a few minor formatting things that need to be fixed (see redlink for "comprehensive peace agreement" in South Sudan section, and the items highlighted in red under the Ref List in #4, 17, 30, 32). If you can tweak those and ping me back, I'll reclassify for you tonight. 47thPennVols (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I have sorted the issues. I couldn't find anything wrong with refs 30 or 32. That red link was the first case sensitive Wikilink I have come across. Thanks for assessing this. It is a big, dense article on an unpleasant topic and I thought that it might sit for some time.

I stumbled across

WP:GOCE. It was a bloated sprawling 15,000 word mess, but fascinating. And the topic was worthy of better. So I hung around to sort it out. Ably assisted by Fugitive Dave. It was assessed as B class this week. As part of the tidy up I exported a large amount of text on rehabilitation and reintegration to the already existing but sadly neglected article. I have been meaning to get back to finish sorting it for a while. I had it tagged as only needing a lead writing, which is my excuse for missing the other issues. (I also created History of children in the military

to handle some of the text. I ought to sort that out too, but I don't think that I have the time or the stomach for it.)

Were your attendances at conferences in a professional capacity? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Looks great. Thanks for tweaking the ref list. (I'm even more impressed now that I've heard the background on the article.) I just finished adjusting the article's WikiProject Milhist section on the Talk page. (All of the B-Class criteria are now checked off, and the article classification now reads B-Class.) My conference attendances were as an audience member in both a professional and personal capacity. (In a prior life, I helped to create and manage educational programs for healthcare providers on behalf of a major university. While working on pain management programs, I developed an interest in the potential links between chronic pain and PTSD, which led me to multiple conferences, further reading, etc. At some point along the way, I met Peter Eichstaedt, the author of "First Kill Your Family: Child Soldiers of Uganda and the Lord's Resistance Army," a depressing, but engrossing book, which further fueled my interest and led me to interactions with the late Martina Knee, who was involved for many years with Save Darfur. I then ended up writing about her work for a series of newspaper articles about genocide prevention and response.) But all of that was a few years ago. Again, many thanks for working on this article. Have a great remainder of your weekend! 47thPennVols (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have earned this after slogging through Rehabilitation and reintegration of child soldiers. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was my pleasure to help. And again, many thanks for all of the guidance you've provided this month. I'd give you the The Guidance Barnstar for your work on the Rehab article and on Reading Artillerists, etc., but I haven't been able to figure out how to add it to your page. (More coffee is in order before I try to teach myself another new skill this morning.)

G'day, just to clarify, unfortunately this one isn't eligible for the backlog drive: [1]. It is, however, eligible for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contest. The relevant part of the backlog drive instructions can be found in Note 6, which says "improvement of stub-class articles (or other articles that already exist in article space prior to the start of the contest) will not attract for points in this contest, although editors are encouraged to enter such contributions in the monthly Milhist writers' contest." Sorry for the confusion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: I wasn't quite sure where to list the 52nd Pennsylvania article; so, many thanks for the clarification. Have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, in hindsight, I think the drive concept is a bit complex and confusing (which is my fault). I think next time I will recommend a simpler approach, but anyway, live and learn! Take care. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert:I'm glad we've had the chance to interact because I've been wanting to thank you for all of your hard work and for the opportunity to participate more actively on Wikipedia. The drive has been a great way for me to do that. Many, many thanks. 47thPennVols (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Hetty Voûte, 47thPennVols!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed, well done!

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about

SamHolt6 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is looking good now. I was going to make a couple of suggestions, but if you want to put it up for GAN - I think that it is ready - I can do it formally. There are still a fair number of areas for improvement, but they are mostly superficial. Obviously, if you would rather hang on a while, or not submit it at all, that's your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Glad to hear it's looking better, and thank you for offering to put it up for GAN. That would be great. But before we do, I'd welcome hearing what were you thinking re: additional improvements. (I really want to make sure her bio is as good as it can be.) 47thPennVols (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, finally got back to this. I will be doing some straight forward copy editing, revert anything you don't like, and using the article talk page to put up some of the comments I would be making if it were a GAN review. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi. Thanks for the offer. I think I'm going to ask you to hold off for a week or two. I'm feeling a bit drained by the recent burst of writing for the Women in Red/Milhist Drive, and quite honestly, a little bruised by the issues you were raising with @Cinderella157 re: my self-asssessments. I just need a short break to get my head back into the game. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw this comment. I think that Gog's comments at my TP were much more about the comp and not about you personally. There are "events" from earlier this year that you are unlikely to be aware of but seen in that different light, Gog's concerns were reasonable, particularly as I was closely involved. I can understand why you might be a little bruised, particularly without having the fuller context. I would hope that you can see past this, as I think that there is great potential for a constructive collaboration. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's May 2018 worldwide online editathons. File:Soraya Aghaee4.jpg New: "Women of the Sea" New: "Villains" New: "Women in Sports" New: "Central Eastern European women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply ]

Hi, I am one of the MilHist coords and I checked your entries for this month's comp. Just a note of "good form", while B-class is an individual assessment, it is done by an independent editor (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. In checking your entries, I did a cursory check of each of the articles you self assessed, against the criteria, and was moderately satisfied that the assessment was warranted but this might reasonably be contested by other contestants (@User:AustralianRupert?). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cinderella157: Thank you for reaching out. Although I've been writing articles for Wikipedia on and off since 2015, I'm still relatively new to the system of classification and assessment. (The April 2018 Military history backlog drive was, in fact, my first real exposure to it so I'm still learning all of the ins and outs.) I believe that my assessments actually did follow the standard. My articles re: Evelyn Tucker, Denise Vernay, and the Reading Artillerists were all independently assessed by other Milhist members earlier on in the process as B-Class, and Mathilde Verspyck and Yvonne Chollet were just assessed by @User:AustralianRupert as B-Class. (I had planned on submitting the others for independent assessment as well, but was waiting on the assessments for Verspyck and Chollet to be completed because I didn't want to monopolize the time of my fellow Milhist members by submitting too many articles for independent assessment at the same time.) Regarding my self-assessments of the other articles (Tillie Pierce, Paulette Duhalde, Hetty Voûte, Ina Boekbinder, Willemiena Bouwman, Gerritdina Benders-Letteboer, and Riet van Grunsven): Each was asssessed by me as only being C-Class (which you can still see when you view the "Edit Source" text). When I self-assessed those articles against the B-Class standards (which I did based on my understanding of the self-assessment guidelines, which state that "Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria"), the template changed the rating to B-Class on the "Read" tab (but still left my self-assessment as C-Class on the "Edit Source" text). So I did only self-assess each of those as C-Class. (If there were any issues of "form," they weren't intentional; they were technical - due to the Milhist template.) 47thPennVols (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your intent wasn't clear (to me) but I did
    WP:AGF. It would have (perhaps) been better to assess them to C-class without checking the B-class criteria off with a note on the TP by way of explanation. Nonetheless, I think that congratulations are due. I don't think that they will be contested but it might depend on other coords. For my part, I have checked and awarded the points. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC) PS. I intended reaching out to you (above) prior to the discussion at my TP and my post to you would have been similar, if not the same, regardless of that. I did AGF from the start. There has been a misunderstanding of your intention (mine). Your fuller explanation justifies my initial assumption of good faith. While I can appreciate how you feel, I hope we can all get past this since it is essentially a series of miscommunications. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @47thPenn: G'day, it is an automatic aspect of the template that if you check "yes" for all five criteria it will display as "B class" in read only mode regardless of what is written in the "class=" field. Hence even start class and C-class articles can and do meet aspects of the B-class criteria, but they can't meet all of them (otherwise they would be B-class). Additionally, the template won't display C-class unless certain B class criteria are ticked as yes. By custom within MILHIST we have encouraged editors to seek independent assessment for B class (while allowing self assessment for stub, start and C-class), but it isn't something that is prominently displayed (I think it appears on the contest instructions page, though), so I wouldn't worry too much about it... live and learn as they say! Anyway, thanks for your efforts with those articles. @Cinderella: thanks for your efforts with verifying the entries. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded this barnstar for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the April 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with a total of 75 points from 14 articles. Well done and congratulations, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for stepping into your work; I do tend to move quickly when newpage patrolling. Mind if I recommend putting up an {{inuse}} template? I generally find those keep editors out of the way...I use them myself often when I'm editing

And for the record...I haven't used AWB in several days. All of the edits were manual. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely appreciate the apology, @Ser Amantio di Nicolao:. I do feel that I need to respond here, though, because the simple fact of the matter is that your edits were so hasty that I wouldn't have had time to post the inuse tag you recommend. You began your new page patrol and editing at 21:24 today just 3 minutes after I had first posted the page (at 21:21), and then proceeded to bombard this new page with a series of edits (including three edits at 21:24, two of which used HotCat, and another four edits, which took place literally one second later at 21:25, all of which used HotCat), etc. I use the term "bombard" here not to be unkind, but to convey to you a sense of how it felt to be on the receiving end of your rapid fire edits. As a gentle reminder, Wikipedia's own guidelines recommend that editors, new page patrollers, et. al. "wait at least 15 minutes to give time to the creator to add content," adding, "Care should be exercised when reviewing very new pages. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvios, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation may stop the creation of a good faith article and drive away a new contributor." You came very close to doing that today with me. So, with respect, I suggest that, whether you're using a bot or performing your edits manually, that you may wish to: a.) give article creators more time before you begin to tag or edit, and b.) consolidate your edits and/or slow down your pace once you do begin so that article creators aren't feeling overwhelmed by your efforts to help. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		The Women's History Barnstar
		For your ongoing contributions in this area, particularly for their quality and the research behind them. Thank you. Ira Leviton (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Yvonne Chollet, 47thPennVols!

Wikipedia editor Onel5969 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Very nice job on the article, keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Learn more about

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Hello again from Women in Red! July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed! Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Are we losing momentum? London calling (the Mayor of London!) Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians Women in Red is featured in Toolhub
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply ]

Since you know more about the American Civil War. Are you prepared to clean up each state and disregard any "useless" information. I'm referring to the both as a "Category" and "List". You know I'm frustrated with it all and you'll list ALL Companies, Battalions and Regiments as redlinks so other users know what is not created. Adamdaley (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If you and me can come up with a list of ALL of the Regiments etc, then we can see where we can start. I'm going to bed, 9:30 pm here. Adamdaley (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've come to you to show you that I've typed out most of the Regiments from Dyer that can be viewed from a subpage. The question I have for the Alabama Union regiments. Would it be like 1st Regiment Alabama Siege Artillery (African Descent)? If so could you show me to right way? I've got 2 done from Illinois because on the National Park Service they have the names. Adamdaley (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reaching out, Adam. As a native Pennsylvanian, I'm more familiar with the history of Pennsylvania's volunteer regiments, emergency militia units, etc. than the regiments which were raised by Alabama, but because I've done a fair amount of Civil War research in general, my recommendation would be to always check with the state archives for any state you're researching (in addition to using the resources of the U.S. National Archives and U.S. National Park Service). I realize that it's time consuming to do this, but I've found that personnel at the individual state archives facilities across America are very knowledgeable about the tiniest details regarding their respective state histories, and are generally happy to help fellow researchers because they want to see those state histories presented correctly.

I went ahead and did a quick search of the website for the Alabama Department of Archives and History, and found that the State of Alabama's archives division has a really wonderful website. Although it doesn't appear that staff have digitized all of their Civil War-related records, they have posted a great deal of helpful content online here, and have a searchable online soldier's database similar to the U.S. National Park Service's Soldiers' and Sailors Dbase online (and to Pennsylvania's Civil War Veterans's Card File). The access page for that Alabama database provides links to Willis Brewer's Brief Historical Sketches of Military Organizations Raised In Alabama During the Civil War and Confederate military unit histories, which may be of help since you're researching multiple regiments from Alabama. (The second of those two links takes you to digitized copies of actual correspondence written by members of various Confederate regiments during the Civil War. So, you might find some really fascinating data there to include in your individual regimental histories.) In addition there are links to the Muster Rolls of Alabama Civil War units and Militia and Home Guard units. (Although the muster rolls don't appear to have been digitized, these two pages do show the naming conventions used by the state archives for Alabama's Civil War-era military units.)

The other thing you might try doing is to reach out directly to a staff member of the state archives, and ask for guidance. If I were working on an ambitious project like yours, I'd start by emailing the director of the Archives Division, Mary Jo Scott (maryjo.scott (at) archives.alabama.gov) to explain your project and ask for guidance. Explain that you're located quite a distance away (so visiting the archives in Alabama isn't an option for you right now), describe your project clearly, but briefly (that you're working on creating a comprehensive list of all of Alabama's Civil War-era regiments, and are trying to ensure its accuracy by listing the correct titles for each regiment), and ask if the archives has a finding aid which lists all of the Alabama regiments (that she could direct you to online or send to you in PDF format). Hopefully, she'll have something she can just point you to online or can email to you, but if not, I'd then ask her if she or one of her staff could provide you with guidance regarding the best way to name the individual regiments. (Maybe even ask her which source(s) they used to create their naming convention?) Hope this helps. It actually looks like Alabama has a wealth of information that could help you do a really great job for Wikipedia. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the 1st Regiment Alabama Siege Artillery (African Descent) here at NPS [2] – It indeed change designation to the 6th U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery in March 1864 and it changed again in April 1864 to the 7th U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery then in January 1865 it changes again to the 11th U.S. Colored Infantry (New Organization). As for the other Alabama I've not search those. Adamdaley (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply ]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

Greetings. Thank you for your thanks for the hyphens edit. I haven't actually reread the article yet, but I have done most of the fussy GAN bits, which flagged up a couple of minor actions for you. I shall try to get back to a proper look at the prose and/or references later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for agreeing to perform the review. I was just re-reading the lead, and noticed that I'd omitted a word ("documented") in the revised version I did yesterday. So, I just fixed that particular spot because it was bugging me. But, I'll hold off on any further tweaks so that you can do what you need to do. Again, many thanks. 47thPennVols (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article William Henry Egle you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:William Henry Egle for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to assess this as B class. What do you think? Kges wants it in a hurry because the deadline for contest entries is 2400 UTC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild: I'm a little concerned because it has seemed, at times this month, that the quantity of the articles posted is more important than the quality. (Several reviewers have used the word "barely" or similar adjectives to qualify their B-class reviews of articles submitted for assessment by at least two different editors in July.) In one instance, KGES stated that there was little to no information available about the Pennsylvania regiment he was profiling - even going so far as to state that there were "no" (his word) Harrisburg newspaper articles about the regiment, which was incorrect. (I did a quick search, turned up several, and let him know, which he thanked me for and then incorporated.) So, I'm a little concerned by his claim that there is "no" (again his word) source for info on the complement for the 207th Pennsylvania. (One would think the original registers for the 207th which are digitized and available on the website of the Pennsylvania State Archives might be helpful in this regard if nothing else exists, but going through those might be too time-consuming a task.) That being said, he has been responsive to other requests from me to improve other submissions, including one that initially had only three references. Adding to my concerns at this point, there have been a couple of comments by several editors on the Mihilst assessment board recently that seem to discount the service of regiments which served on garrison duty (as if having not been "under fire" has made their service less important and/or not noteworthy enough to merit articles about those regiments). I just wish I didn't feel as if so many of the articles about Pennsylvania's Civil War regiments are being given less effort than they deserve right now. (P.S. I just found another source which will add a citation to the 207th Pennsylvania. So, go ahead and tell KGES that it's B-Class while I add the new data to his article for him.) Thanks. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you. I think that Kges has the bit between his teeth and scents a first place - I know that feeling and sympathise. I suspect that this is, as you suspect, causing him to churn out items without giving them the time and effort they should really have. Hopefully he will revert to his more thorough self after 2400.

Can I suggest that, clearly being more conversant with the period and conflict, you try to assess all of his ACW articles - obviously not as an obligation, if you are busy, he creates a silly number, etc. Including this one, please. And perhaps gently give other editors who assess them a similar message to this one. Your assessing seems perfectly reasonable and flexible to me, but should be knowledgeable enough to keep Kges on the straight and narrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About the complement, there really is no sourced number that wouldn't be OR (I do not trust my counting abilities enough to total up all of the names on the regimental roster). The only reason that I was able to cite complement numbers for the Philadelphia regiments was because the original source (Taylor) probably counted up the number of names on the muster roll. As for the Harrisburg, I was wrong about it, but I was not aware of the PSU archive at the time. On newspapers.com there were no Harrisburg newspapers available for the period - their archives of the Harrisburg Telegraph began after the end of the war. I admit that I rushed too much this contest, and anyway it turns out to have been irrelevant since I am too far off from 1st place this time, after finally doing the math. Kges1901 (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901: Aw, that's a shame. After you left me in the dirt I was hoping that you would take first place. I assume that Parsecboy has it with all of those Imperial German ships? I suspected that it was close and was trying to help by assessing your last minute submissions before the deadline. But after reading 47thPennVols' interjections I realise that I was out of my depth. I was, as you can see, trying to encourage them to take a lead role in ACW assessing as they are clearly knowledgeable in the area. In fact, 47th, have you assessed any GANs yet. Perhaps you should consider it, if only as QPQ for the GA you now have? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Peacemaker, I think that he is simply concerned with notability and has nothing specific against 30 day regiments. Of course, he may suspect that a unit which only existed for 30 days is less likely to be notable than one which served for 4 years but if they meet the policy guidelines I am sure that he will treat them fairly. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading about Hodge's life and work. Great research! MauraWen (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @MauraWen: Thanks so much for your kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed learning more about her, and hope others will as well. I was so pleased to see your article about Julienne Lusenge. She is another of those trailblazers who has shown her community and world that one woman really can make a difference. Best wishes for continued success with your research and writing! 47thPennVols (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a great article, but please remember to make redirects from other versions of her name, to help readers to find it and to reduce the risk of some other editor creating a duplicate at a slightly different name. In particular it's important to create

Ruth Evelyn Perry and a hatnote at Ruth Perry, just in case. PamD 22:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ipigott: Am I required to do multiple redirects and hatnotes for WIR articles? 47thPennVols (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no "requirement" to spend a lot of time on redirects and hatnotes. (I rarely spend much time on them myself but as you know, women's names are generally more demanding than men's.) By far the most important task is of course creating the articles themselves. I think PamD has been rather hasty in some of her comments. She seems to have completely overlooked the considerable number of fine articles you have created over the past three years, all with impeccable sourcing. I must say she frequently tries to help people along, offering useful advice and tips, but in this case she wrongly assumed you were a relative newcomer. I have seen how upset you feel about all this on your talk page. I hope nonetheless that given the excellent standard of your work, you will continue to contribute to our Monthly achievements. As far as I can see, up to now no one else has produced B-class articles. Yours should be an inspiration to others. This seems to be the second time I have tried to persuade you to contribute to Women in Red -- hopefully the last. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to appreciate your recent contributions. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I hesitate to say this because I see you're an experienced editor with a Good Article to your name, as well as being a "published non-fiction author and humanities researcher-writer", but... you did say on @Ipigott:'s talk page that you're back editing after a break and that you feel yourself to be a relative newbie, so I will.

Looking at both Ruth E. Hodge and Mary Lowe Dickinson, I see that you use an unusual citation style for English Wikipedia. It's more akin to what I'd expect in a printed journal. In enwiki it's more usual either (a) to split the sources out from the list of citations, or alternatively (b) to just have the one list of references, in which multiple occurrences of a reference are re-used by giving the reference a name and citing it by name. Looking at the four Featured Articles on today's main page as a small but random sample of Wikipedia's finest, I find that Bill Brown (cricketer), Loss of MV Darlwyne and Ian Smith use the former system and Baby Boy (Beyoncé song) the latter. With your system, on finding a reference like "”Marcus L. Hodge,” The Sentinel." I have to skim back up through the list of references to find it expanded: with the two-list system there would be a separate shorter list of the sources where I could find that one quickly. Or with the second system, there would just be a whole lot of links to the one reference. There's also a template{{rp}}, "reference page" which can be useful when you want to refer to different pages within a particular source, though perhaps it clutters the text of the article.

There are various documentation pages about referencing. They all offer lots of options, and the instruction not to change the established citation style without very good reason.

I don't know what the people who consider GA and FA nominations would say to your current style of doing citations but I think they would probably object. But who am I to talk? I don't write long and thoroughly-researched articles, I just create well-sourced stubs with a full panoply of incoming redirects, and I wiki-gnome around, stub-sorting and generally tidying things up! Welcome back to editing, and congratulations on the two major women's articles I've seen. Oh, another point: subjects are only referred to by surname throughout their article, with some complexity about birth names, name when getting married, etc. But in general it's surname only: not "Ruth E. Hodge has been the recipient of multiple honors" but plain "Hodge has ...". Happy Editing! PamD 09:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I see now that your William Henry Egle is a GA and has, for example, multiple references to "Kelker, History of Dauphin County." which aren't combined. I'm surprised. I now see that Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations only says "For multiple use of the same inline citation or footnote, you can use the named references feature", rather than "... should ...", as I'd always thought. Ah well. PamD 09:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I am personally more interested in the fond than in the forme. In other words, providing information is clearly sourced, I'm not too bothered in early versions of articles, whether the references follow the more common Wikipedia practices or not. From the editor's point of view, it might nevertheless be less cumbersome to use "the one list of references, in which multiple occurrences of a reference are re-used by giving the reference a name and citing it by name", especially if several of them refer to the very same page. In any case, I think 47thPV should be congratulated on being so thorough in his sourcing. As far as I can see, all the details in each of these two articles are unusually well referenced, bringing the articles up to at least C class.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ipigott: Many thanks, Ian. 47thPennVols (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I sincerely appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to try to be of assistance; however, I have to say that I am very uncomfortable with several of the messages you have posted on my talk page recently.

Although I did mention to @Ipigott: (via a message which was a communication *to* Ian and for response *from* Ian if he had time to respond) that I was back after having taken a break (because he and I had had previous communications about that). I took that break only from Women in Red – and not from writing and editing for other Wikipedia projects, as you’re mistakenly assuming above. (My Wikipedia contributions last month were largely done on behalf of the Milhist WikiProject; in addition, I worked on a variety of professional writing projects outside of Wikipedia as well, including a new book-length project which takes up the bulk of my time).

Please be assured that I absolutely do understand how to cite articles correctly. I spent the majority of my professional career working for two major university systems in the United States. (One of my jobs involved coordinating and participating on academic monograph peer review committees; another involved the development and management of post-graduate programs, including coordinating the American academic side of an international collaboration between three major universities.) In addition, as you note above, I am a published author. Although I tend to use Chicago-Turabian or MLA styles when writing, I have become comfortable with AMA, APA, AP (and some very odd "house style" guides) over the years.

Regarding your statement, “I don't know what the people who consider GA and FA nominations would say to your current style of doing citations but I think they would probably object,” actually they haven’t. My GA review went quite smoothly, as have the various WikiProject peer reviews for the multiple B-Class articles that I have produced to date. (Several of my reviewers, in fact, have urged me to submit more of my articles for GA review.) Sometimes citations changed during these reviews; sometimes they didn't. (In short, what may be an uncomfortable citation/referencing style for you, has not been for other experienced Wikipedians.) In addition, as Ian has observed, both of the WIR articles of mine that you've chosen to critique are still in their early phase of development. (I literally hit "publish" on the one we're discussing right now during what was my late afternoon on Aug. 2; the other was published on Aug. 1.)

With respect to your other comment that “subjects are only referred to by surname throughout their article, with some complexity about birth names, name when getting married, etc.” your statement here is also not completely accurate. The reviewer of my GA-class article and I recently spent a fair amount of time analyzing the finer points of Wikipedia’s MoS re: naming conventions for the subject of another one of my articles – prior to my submitting that one for GA review, and we ended up learning that the MoS does not require that the subject's last name be used throughout. (In fact, because it gets confusing when discussing people with the same surname - a daughter and her parents/siblings or a wife and her husband - the MoS actually directs authors to use the first names of subjects rather than surnames. Per the MoS: "To distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page, use given names or complete names to refer to each of the people upon first mention. For subsequent uses, refer to them by their given names for clarity and brevity.... For example ... Correct: Ronald and Nancy Reagan arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.... Correct: The Reagans arrived separately, Ronald by helicopter and Nancy by car.... Correct: Jacob Grimm was 14 months older than his brother Wilhelm." Incorrect: Using sentences such as "'Clinton met Clinton while they were students at Yale.'")

Quite frankly, to be critiqued so intensely (and repeatedly during a short period of time) when I've worked so hard on the Hodge and Dickinson articles (compared with other editors who are submitting non-sourced or barely-sourced stubs across a range of WikiProjects) is more than a little overwhelming and disheartening. (You may not have meant for your messages to have that impact on me, but they did. Furthermore, I'm utterly baffled as to why you felt the need to bring up my article about Egle when it is unrelated to this discussion.) I had planned on working on another new woman's bio for WIR this weekend, but am no longer feeling motivated to do so. I wish you continued success with your own work. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you find my well-intentioned comments demotivating:please continue with your WiR work. I mentioned Egle because I'd followed the link there from the green GA symbol on your page. I will say no more. Happy Editing. PamD 12:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I was a bit taken aback by the implicit criticism of my GAN assessing re reference style, especially as I noticed after I had approved Egle that I had sloppily omitted to specifically comment on it. (Me bad.) Interesting that 14 minutes after commenting on your reference style there is an acknowledgement of actually having read the appropriate guideline. I thought that I was going to have to point it out. I am (I had just deleted an immodest "obviously") aware of it, not least because one of my WiR GAs (Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War - the one you encouraged me to take to GA when I had no intention of so doing) uses a variant of your Egle style. You write a 1,600 word article with 41 citations[!] and get critiqued on a technicality[!!] because PamD thinks it is "unusual". I can only agree with Ipigott. I am reminded of the words Bernard Shaw puts into Caesar's (or is that Ceasor's?) mouth:

BRITANNUS (shocked): Caesar: this is not proper. CAESAR (recovering his self-possession): Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.

- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gog the Mild:. I'm still feeling bewildered by the intense dialogue which resulted from what I thought was a reasonably good start on the article re: Mary Lowe Dickinson, and remain particularly perplexed as to how and why the article of mine you reviewed for GA status (Egle) could even have been brought into the discussion re: my Dickinson article when those two articles were totally unrelated. My apologies for any discomfort that you may be feeling as a result of this awkward situation. You were only trying to do a good deed by assessing and improving a GAN as part of Milhist's efforts to reduce the number of GANs needing review (something you have done quite successfully for multiple other Wikipedians I might add). I hope you know that the critiques and counsel that you offered during that process for the Egle article were constructive, and very much appreciated. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If I assess a GAN there are a set of criteria. If I miss on one then it needs to be pointed out to me. I was pretty sure that I hadn't this time so - well, I was going to say "I was relaxed", but that's not true; like most people I dislike being criticised, even when it is well intentioned and uninformed. I am not surprised that you feel bewildered and the main reason that I chipped in above was to reinforce what you already knew - that your articles were fully Wiki-compliant AND good exemplars.

To one side, I try to AGF and I am aware that I have posted comments which have, reasonably, caused you distress in the past and so am in a poor position to throw stones.

Also, I like your generous but firmly assertive responses to some of your correspondents. I have tucked some of your phraseology away in case I ever find myself in need of similar.

To end with a series of clichés: Keep on generating your good quality articles; Damn the torpedoes; It is better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

• @
  Catrìona: Thank you so much for conducting the GA review for Denise Vernay. I began researching her as part of the Women in Red/Milhist challenge back in April and, after just a short time, was awed by her life story. So, I've been working really hard to make sure that the article about her is the best that it can be. I look forward to your feedback. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You're welcome! She certainly has an interesting life story. I've added some initial feedback on

talk) 03:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I am E. Whittaker, I am working with Wikimedia’s Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at [email protected] in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply ]

Thanks for creating Morton L. Montgomery, 47thPennVols!

Wikipedia editor Robertgombos just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job!

To reply, leave a comment on Robertgombos's talk page.

Learn more about

Robertgombos (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so much for reviewing and for your kind words ("Nice job!") in the edit summary. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it looks like you have found the problem with the image upload. The standard hold period is one week. The article has now been on hold for 14 days. I'm happy to leave it as long as you need to resolve the issues that I brought up, as long as you are still intending to do so. In the current state, I cannot pass it.

Hiya. No biggie. But was wondering about this assessment note. In particular "b1 <!- - Referencing and citations - -> = no". Do I read this as an assessment that the b1 criteria ("suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations") are not met? Given that (almost) every sentence in the article is supported by a reliable/inline ref, I'm interested to understand which of the major points could benefit from additional (or better) cites? I'm happy to help improve any that are lacking. If you have any in particular in mind... Guliolopez (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez: Thanks so much for reaching out. The one area I saw that might benefit from an additional citation was in the History section - par. 3, 1st sentence, but I also agree with you that, overall, you've done a great job on citations. (I just took another look, and the error was definitely on my end. So, I've gone ahead and checked off B1, and raised the rating to C-Class.) Thanks so much for your hard work. Kind regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the template source for the "Importance" in WikiProject Military History? There is none, therefore I clearly moved it to the WP:Biography with a Mid importance as you had it in WP:MILHIST. Adamdaley (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Since you were the primary reviewer on the Egle article, and just approved it for GA status on July 31, 2018, could you explain to Adam why the article is/was appropriate for the military history category? (Adam seems to feel there are changes needed to the GA classification.) 47thPennVols (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not changed the "GA" assessment. I clearly moved the invalid code from one WikiProject where it was clearly not being maintained as "Mid", to WikiProject Biography where it is being actually useful. Adamdaley (talk) 06:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam: I'm not going to get drawn into a back and forth by you on this. I've asked @Gog the Mild: to share his insights. Please be patient and wait for a reply. In the meantime, you might want to turn your attention to one of the 24,062 other articles that are listed by Milhist coordinators as needing attention. (These articles haven't had B-class checklists added, and the majority have never been assessed in any capacity. Additionally, many are at stub or start-class level - far below the Egle article which has already been awarded GA status.) Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's where I came from a week ago. That's what I was doing. I'm not argue here, I'm just telling you that it was in the wrong place, otherwise every WikiProject Military History would have an importance section. Adamdaley (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam: You are being argumentative. I've politely asked you to wait for a reply from @Gog the Mild: but, instead, you have continued to post argumentative content. Because you're unwilling to wait for potential input from Gog the Mild, and because you've been warned about this type of hostile behavior on Milhist discussion threads in the past, I'm now officially asking you to stop posting on my talk page. I will not engage with you any further. 47thPennVols (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well he'll eventually come. You're just as bad as me, if you wanna do this all day, knowing he hasn't come quite yet. If you don't reply, I won't either. He'll eventually come and comment. Adamdaley (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article

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. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]

Hello! I see you have fold3 access. I was wondering if you can clear up some questions I have. I requested access, and was accepted, but I was unable to actually gain access to the full website. I was emailed with instructions to give account info (username); I did, and nothing has happened since. The Fold3 system indicates that I only have a Basic Free Membership account. Is that what I'm supposed to have? Am I supposed to have premium, or something else? Many thanks. -Broichmore (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Broichmore: Thanks so much for reaching out. Yes, I do have Fold3, and I've found it quite helpful for my research. I initially had a similar problem in which I was approved but was unable to access anything but the basic content. As I remember, it took more than a month. The Wikipedia coordinator for the Fold3 service, Iazyges (courtesy ping: @Iazyges:), is a volunteer, and is quite busy. It also apparently took a bit of time for the coordinator on Fold3's end to review and process the application. How long have you been trying to access the premium content? 47thPennVols (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Broichmore: Apologies; I like to send the info to their coordinator two weeks after I send out the email telling everyone to create a free account, to allow for most to respond. I meant to send it out on monday but forgot; it has been sent now, and you should receive access soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iazyges: Thanks for responding so quickly, and again, thanks for all you're doing to help us obtain (and maintain) access to Fold3. I just found another amazing document in the Civil War pension file of a Medal of Honor winner that I'm writing about for Wikipedia. (That carte de visite photo that I found in a different file a few weeks ago for an entirely different officer was also pretty amazing. Fold3 is turning out to be a gold mine.) Have a great weekend! 47thPennVols (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• My pleasure. Best of luck with your research. 47thPennVols (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Anderson (Medal of Honor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appomattox Court House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This is an apparent bot error. Just checked every link throughout the article (with the name "Appomattox"). There were no dabs. 47thPennVols (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Ferdinand F. Rohm, 47thPennVols!

Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Just so that you know, I've requested that you be given the

new page patrollers. If you have any questions or objections, feel free to let me know

. Cheers!

To reply, leave a comment on SkyGazer 512's talk page.

• @SkyGazer 512: What a pleasant surprise to see this message pop up on my talk page. Thanks so much for reviewing the Rohm article and for taking the initiative to ask that I be granted autopatrolled right. I'll also post my thanks to your talk page in a sec, but just wanted to express my thanks here as well. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 06:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learn more about

SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 47thPennVols, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

• @Swarm: Thanks so much for your kind words and also for granting my account autopatrolled status. Kind regards, and have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, or I should say, good for all of us. Thanks for your help in the ACW area of interest. BusterD (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BusterD: Thanks so much for your support and for your kind words as well. Have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply ]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the September 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with 124 points from 22 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! 47thPennVols (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list )

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

This monthly newsletter showcases the Wikipedia Education Program. It focuses on sharing: your ideas, stories, success and challenges. You can see past editions here. You can also volunteer to help publish the newsletter. Join the team! Finally, don't forget to subscribe!

Can you please sign this petition requesting certain historic photos be released for Wikimedia Commons? (Many of them are needed for WiR and Milhist projects) Please do spread the word of the petition to other Wikipedians too. Thanks, --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

Hello, 47thPennVols. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 47thPennVols. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

@AustralianRupert: My apologies for the delay in responding. I've been off of Wikipedia and the computer in general, and am just now only seeing your posts. In addition to it being Thanksgiving vacation week for many of us in the U.S. right now, I've been recovering from a rather nasty accident. I was nearly hit by a car while I was crossing a street several weeks ago, and fell while trying to get out of the car's path. (I had the right of way, by the way, and the police have confirmed that the driver was clearly at fault.) I'm feeling oddly fortunate at this point because if I hadn't fallen, I would actually have been hit by the car. Unfortunately, I sustained significant injuries to my hand and arm - injuries which have are still making computer use somewhat difficult. So, first, I'm grateful that you've been willing to initiate the GA review for this article. And, second, I genuinely appreciate all of your suggestions. I haven't had the chance yet to review all of them, but many of those I did review seemed sound and insightful. Third, I'm relieved that you've now put the GA review on hold (per your message below) because I'm going to need a bit more time in order to work through your list and complete the items you'd recommend be adjusted. Would it be possible for me to have until mid-December? (I would not normally ask this, but my doctor has advised me to continue to limit the use of my hand, wrist and arm for a few more weeks.) Again, many thanks for your help. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article

@AustralianRupert: My apologies for the delay in responding. Per my message above re: your launch of the GA review for this article, I've been off of Wikipedia and the computer in general, and am just now only seeing your posts - due to it being Thanksgiving vacation week for many of us in the U.S. right now, as well as to my recovery from a nasty accident. (Please see the message above for details.) I'm relieved that you've now put the GA review on hold (per your message below), and am requesting that I be given a slightly longer hold time (to mid-December) to allow for recovery from injuries, as well as to complete the items you've recommended be adjusted. (Again, I would not normally ask this, but my doctor has advised me to continue to limit the use of my hand, wrist and arm for a few more weeks.) Many thanks. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply ]

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

The article 91st Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:91st Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you an appropriately merry and appropriately relaxed Christmas. Your words and sentiments have made Wikipedia a more enjoyable place, certainly for me and I am quite sure for many others. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108 Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. January events: Women of War and Peace Play! January geofocus: Caucasus New, year-long initiative: Suffrage Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0) --Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

		2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar for being nominated for the 2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 47thPennVols, I wanted to say happy New Year and hopefully you'd have a great 2019. Because of timezones is it highly posible that I'm living in 2019 when you see this message. That's why I'll say it now already, even it is still 2018 there. I would say: "you Americans follow us the Europeans into the future". Cheers and have a great day, year and be save. CPA-5 (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on William Henry Egle you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on William Henry Egle you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on William Henry Egle you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		For your work on William Henry Egle you are hereby awarded the American Civil War Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111 Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons. February events: Social Workers Black Women February geofocus: Ancient World Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019 Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage: Socialites Twitter - Forgotten African American Suffragists Women in Red image uploads to Commons Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0) Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

This Month in Education: January 2019

This Month in Education Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January 2019 Contents • Headlines • Subscribe In This Issue Registration for Wikimedia+Education Conference is open Collaboration with Yerevan State University of Languages and Social Sciences after V. Brusov Meet the first Programs & Events Dashboard sysops More than a hundred students gathered in Ecuador to edit Wikipedia Selet WikiSchool continues to teach young Tatar language Wikipedians The WikiClub contributes to the development of our human qualities Third prize for Wikipedia in schools project We've updated the design of Education space! The WikiChallenge Ecoles d'Afrique is back Wiki Advanced Training at VVIT Creating our first WikiClub WikiClubs participate in edit-a-thon of cartoons Wikimedia and Education in Portugal: Where are we now Wikimedia Israel: “Wikipedia Ambassadors” program for Arabic-speaking schools is launched

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

March 2019 at Women in Red

		March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113 Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen Geofocus: Francophone Women Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman
		Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe --Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back 47thPennVols happy to see you back. Yes I know I'm a little bit late to say "welcome back" but I am in a really busy period (with my family) so couldn't be here on Wikipedia most of the time. But I am happy to see you back. PS happy (late) Valentine's Day. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Many thanks for the warm welcome and Valentine's Day wishes. I'm still needing to limit my time here because I'm still having a few problems with my left hand (related to the accident), but am happy to be able to at least research and type for a little bit. Hope all's well in your world. Looking forward to reading more of your work. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome 47thPennVols. I'm happy to hear your recovery. Yes I know this sounds a little awkward to say but I will take a little break on Wikipedia to finish those damnson family stuff. In the meantime please be safe and careful especially with your left hand. I will be back as soon as possible which would be in begin March. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

April 2019 at Women in Red

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117 Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: Gender studies / United Nations / Dance Geofocus: Portuguese-speakers Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Apply for Education Greenhouse Are you passionate about open education? Do you have an idea to apply Wikimedia projects to an education initiative but don’t know where to start? Join the the Wikimedia & Education Greenhouse! It is an immersive co-learning experience that lasts 9 months and will equip you with the skills, knowledge and support you need to bring your ideas to life. You can apply as a team or as an individual, by May 12th. Find out more Education Greenhouse. For more information reachout to mguadalupewikimedia.org

—MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121 Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual events: New topics: "May" women / Mayors / Environentalists Geofocus: CEE countries Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

June events with WIR

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125 Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red: Virtual events: New topics: Pride / Royals / Space Geofocus: Mediterranean Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Other ways you can participate: Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

July events from Women in Red!

July 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 127, 128 Check out what's happening in July at Women in Red... Virtual events: New topics: Sports / Education Geofocus: Microstates Continuing initiatives: Suffrage / #1day1woman Initiatives we support: Atari Women University of Edinburgh 1000 Women in Religion Editor feedback: Check out the conversations regarding Sports, Sports, Sports! Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi, I'm confused why you've removed stub tags from articles that are clearly stubs such as here and here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your inquiry, @User:Eagles247. As a native Pennsylvanian and longtime student of Pennsylvania and American History, I've been bothered by the historical lack of activity on WikiProject Pennsylvania. (At one point, this lack of activity contributed to WikiProject Pennsylvania being labeled as "semi-active" by Wikipedia, and clearly has been a key factor behind the proliferation of articles on the project being tagged as stubs by bots when they are, in fact, start class or better when compared to articles from other state wikiprojects. (With respect, I humbly disagree with your assessment that the articles you're referring to above were "clearly stubs." Although the 1841 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election does not have extensive text content, it includes far more content than many other existing stubs on Wikipedia today including, among other things: the beginnings of a Reference section with an initial inline citation; an image of the winning candidate, David R. Porter, and a wikilink to his biographical article on Wikipedia; a chart listing the candidates by name, party affiliation, vote count, and percentage of votes garnered; a graphic (statewide map) showing the election results by county. And while the Dan Ficca article is a short one, the creator did take the time to create an Infobox showing Ficca's basic career highlights - so, it's really more than the mere stub that many articles are on Wikipedia.)

As an educator, I've been equally bothered by the fact that many of my fellow educators prohibit their students from using Wikipedia as a source for articles about Pennsylvania's history and its people. (I've been told by more than a few that one of their reasons is that the articles appear to be lesser quality because they have been labeled as stubs or otherwise tagged as lacking appropriate references and/or supporting materials.)

For these two reasons, I decided to begin work on stub sorting, retagging/detagging, and adding new content with new inline citations to as many Pennsylvania articles as I can get to with my limited free time. So, it's troubling to me that you reverted my removal of the stub tags for both of these articles at 18:18 (Ficca) and 18:19 (1841 gubernatorial) on July 3 before posting your query to me at 18:21. I believe it would have been more appropriate for you to assume good faith and initiate the appropriate dialogue as to why I took the actions I did before reverting me because, as you can see from my explanation above, there has been no malicious intent on my part. I have simply been following Wikipedia's guidance to be bold with respect to removing stub status.

So, now that I've explained things, I'm formally asking that you undo your revert to at least the 1841 gubernatorial article because I believe your action was incorrect for that particular article. (Since you're a sports expert, I'll leave the decision re: the Ficca article to you, but the gubernatorial article is clearly not a stub.) Thanks for your cooperation. (I'll also post my response to your query on your talk page as well just to make sure you see it.) Best wishes for continued success with your own research and editing. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. It is admirable to see your dedication to Pennsylvania-related articles on Wikipedia, but I believe you are missing the intention of articles being labeled as "stubs". The templates at the bottom of stubs are used to encourage readers and editors to expand the pages, they aren't red letters saying these articles aren't good enough to be read by an average user of the site. Per

WP:DESTUB), "Once a stub has been properly expanded and becomes a larger article, any editor may remove its stub template." Many of the articles you removed the templates from were not expanded, and thus do not meet the guideline to remove the templates. I stand by all of my reversions, as two sentences of prose and two infoboxes are not enough for these articles to be considered "start" class. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for being willing to discuss your thinking on this, @User:Eagles247, but again, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment since, in my opinion, the gubernatorial articles are somewhat more than the stub definition of "a very basic description of the topic" (due to the features I mentioned above, including the charts which list the candidates, their respective party affiliations, vote totals and vote percentages). I firmly believe these articles provide "some meaningful content" (start class and even some elements of C-class) as opposed to "very little meaningful content" (stub class). I'm puzzled by your assertion that, "in general it is agreed that [stub articles] are less than 10 sentences, 250 words, or 1500 characters of prose" (since the actual phrase from that paragraph reads: "Over the years, different editors have followed different rules of thumb to help them decide when an article is likely to be a stub. Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text. AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words"). Furthermore, Wikipedia's stated criteria for article assessments (Template:Grading scheme) simply describes the differences thusly:

• Stub Class: "A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.... Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant...."
• Start Class: "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.... Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more...."

So, because we disagree on this point, but can both point to Wikipedia guidelines to support our respective positions, I am asking again, respectfully, that you undo your reverts on the history-related articles. (I will defer to you on the sports-related articles since you're the sports expert, but ask that you respect my level of expertise as an educator, published author, and experienced Wikipedia editor.) I'll also post my response to you on your talk page for consistency sake. Again, many thanks for your collegiality and cooperation. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you to

consensus for your edits. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

August 2019 at Women in Red

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131 Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red... Virtual events: New: Film+Stage / Indigenous women / Millennial countries Continuing: Sports (through August 31st) / Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: August's Indigenous Women event and the REDress Project Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

]

September 2019 at Women in Red

September 2019, Volume 5, Issue 9, Numbers 107, 108, 132, 133, 134, 135 Check out what's happening in September at Women in Red... Online events: New: Law / Military history / Writers / Geofocus: defunct countries Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Missing articles about notable women by "nationality" vs. "country of citizenship" Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	I just visited some of the articles I wrote a while back on Vermont Medal of Honor recipients in the Civil War and noticed you significantly expanded many of them. Thank you! Vermont (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont: My pleasure. Thank YOU for researching and starting the articles in the first place. Anyone who has one a Medal of Honor deserves to be remembered, IMHO, so your work in this regard has been really important. Best wishes for continued success with your own research and writing, and many thanks for your kind words and the "warm fuzzy" you sent by way of the barnstar! 47thPennVols (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2019 (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. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the article

@Animalparty: Many thanks for your input. I went back and forth with myself over the naming because, although the name used for many of the books he authored was "Richard Wheeler", a number of military historians have referred to or cited him over the years as "Dick Wheeler." Further complicating the matter are the multiple instances of newspaper editors (including those at major newspapers) who regularly referred to him as "Richard 'Dick' Wheeler" (and who still do in 2019), which I suspect may have been/may be an editorial choice because there have been/are so many "Richard Wheelers" and "Dick Wheelers" out there. In addition, the problem with using "Richard Wheeler (historian)" is that there are actually other Richard Wheelers out there who were/are/may become historians, including at least one who has also been involved with films/documentaries (Richard Wheeler, the National Specialist in Garden History with the National Trust, who worked on "The First Georgians"; here's his LinkedIn profile, fyi). I do understand that Wikipedia has a style guide with respect to the names of biographical subjects, but after reading and re-reading it more than a few times over the years, I believe that it provides significant flexibility, particularly with respect to the usage of middle names. So, for these reasons, I'm not convinced that the name of the article should be changed. IMHO, I think changing the article title could potentially make it more confusing for readers, rather than less so, but if you have further thoughts, I'd welcoming hearing those. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 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 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019, Volume 5, Issue 10, Numbers 107, 108, 137, 138, 139, 140 Check out what's happening in October at Women in Red... Online events: New: STEM / Fashion / Geofocus: landlocked countries / Stub Contest Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Women vice Chancellors in Top 200 universities Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your thanks for my rating on

]

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

2019 US Banknote Contest

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

November 2019, Volume 5, Issue 11, Numbers 107, 108, 140, 141, 142, 143 Check out what's happening in November at Women in Red... Online events: New: Librarians / Leaders / Geofocus: Asian Women Month Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

December events with WIR

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147 Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red... Online events: New: Parliamentarians / Classical musicians / 2019 deaths / Geofocus: Arab world Continuing: Suffrage / #1day1woman / Stub Contest Editor feedback: Check out the conversation regarding: Disappearing articles Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

January 2020 at Women in Red

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153 Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020! Online events: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

February with Women in Red

February 2020, Volume 6, Issue 2, Numbers 150, 151, 152, 154, 155 Happy Valentine's Day from all of us at Women in Red. Online events: New: Explorers / Black Women / Horror / Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

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 team[reply]

On 6 March 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Rosalind P. Walter, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews

April 2020 at Women in Red

April 2020, Volume 6, Issue 4, Numbers 150, 151, 159, 160, 161, 162 April offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Gender studies / Dance / Geofocus: Caucasus Photo and image campaign: #VisibleWikiWomen Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Editor feedback: Schedule planning at the Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

May 2020 at Women in Red

May 2020, Volume 6, Issue 5, Numbers 150, 151, 163, 164, 165, 166 May offerings at Women in Red. Online events: New: Healthcare / Women and their animals / Marys and Mays/ Geofocus Central & Eastern Europe Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

June 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red June 2020, Volume 6, Issue 6, Numbers 150, 151, 167, 168, 169 Online events: New: Pride / United Nations / Geofocus on reducing gender imbalance Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Women in Red / July 2020, Volume 6, Issue 7, Numbers 150, 151, 170, 171, 172, 173 Online events: New: July Julies / Disability / Women from Where? ... and starting for an extended period: BLM/Anti-discrimination Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman / Sports! Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

August 2020 at Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2020, Volume 6, Issue 8, Numbers 150, 151, 173, 174, 175 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Countries headed by women Interwiki collaborations: Interwiki Women Collaboration | Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Ending August 31st: Sports (returning for the next Olympics) Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

Women in Red | September 2020, Volume 6, Issue 9, Numbers 150, 151, 176, 177 Online events: New: Women writers | Women in conflict zones Interwiki collaborations: Women of WWII Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[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) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

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) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]