Archive 3: Jul to Dec 2009

You are invited to add material to the brand new Acadiana Wiki (http://acadiana.wikia.com/wiki/Acadiana_Wiki). Hope to see your contributions there! Falkonry (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western University (Kansas), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Baptist Church (Petersburg, Virginia), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Gillfield Baptist Church, Virginia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You are very welcome - User:BorgQueen picked the hook, I just did the notices Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Pocahontas Island, Virginia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Dravecky (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been involved in the Toussaint Louverture article and was wondering if you could help out at Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Peer review/Vincent Ogé? Thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to look at the peer review but did some copy editing on the article and its citations, especially reorganizing some material in better chronological order. Overall, I suggest it needs more background so that people might understand the society of Saint-Domingue at the time, and its history. Will look at it more later.--Parkwells (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your great work. I will do too, but need some time to read through the sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

DYK for Frederick B. Williams

On January 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick B. Williams, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wyatt Tee Walker, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned from a longer than expected WikiBreak, but I wanted to say hello and to ask you a question. I've been researching the history of Southwest Washington, D.C., and came upon an interesting event: The Pearl incident in 1848. My question is in regards to whether or not you think the

]

Stereotypes of white people

Hi Parkwells. Glad to see you got a hold of this article. Frankly, I was hesitant to do it, but last week I "saved" it from being deleted. It was written as racist bile, and was hardly worth the investment of time. However, the principle of the matter overwhelmed me and I did rewrite it using only the citations I found. I refuse to go further, but... if you have any suggestions I will follow your guidance. Let me know! Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 18:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, congrats on your DYK streak - that's cool. • Freechild'sup? 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your idea. The rub for me came in what I attribute to the principle of the matter: if WP is going to have an article entitled Stereotypes of African Americans surely it requires one called stereotypes of white people. I feel a tiny bit okay because I reduced it to an examination of a sociological phenomenon rather than a simplistic listing of actual stereotypes. So... I do see your point though; this doesn't actually change anything about anyone's perceptions, which seems to represent the highest ideal of WP. Back to the purpose! Thanks for the reminder. • Freechild'sup? 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its challenging to consider the depth of what those articles could be. That said, the other question I have for you is about categorization: there has been a movement to eliminate all of the ethnicity/race-oriented subcategorizations[1]. I'm upset that the discussion was so short and apparently did not take into account any awareness of the sociological implications of being a business person of a specific race. What do you think? We've discussed before the implications of race and identity within WP, and I think there needs to be more conversation in a more deliberative way, lest much of the material we've created, i.e. African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska, be deleted without consideration for its significance. • Freechild'sup? 14:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Also, FYI, here's a page you may be interested in: Help:Archiving a talk page. • Freechild'sup? 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an OTRS representative, I have helped Paul Hooper leave a lengthy commentary on talk:Institute of Pacific Relations; he is looking forward to seeing contributors' responses. DS (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your info added to

WP:BIAS. Funny, I haven't run into that problem on any city article other than that one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

New Great Migration

Hey. I saw your information about the New Great Migration. However, Washington (at least the D.C. area) is a prime destination for African Americans leaving the north. The Frey article says, "Atlanta and Washington, D.C. were the top destinations for black migrants from all three regions; white migrants moved to a broader set of areas including Miami, Phoenix, and Los Angeles." Just wanted to give you a heads up. Best,

]

Some are leaving; others (who are educated and can get good jobs) are moving in. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.--Parkwells (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely true. But the way the article is worded at the moment makes it sound as if black people are leaving D.C. to move South, which isn't exactly right. You may want to reword it to make that clear, maybe using the same article to cite the migration to the suburbs instead. Best,

epicAdam^(talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I readded some of the information to the demographics section. Hopefully, I was able to provide a good summary while trying to tie it in better to the text. Let me know what you think. Best,

epicAdam^(talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, thanks, had not had a chance to get back to that. I made some minor changes to try to express two phases of migration.--Parkwells (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not an admin. You can try

]

Black president

Hi Parkwells. I'd love to see you copy edit Black president. • Freechild'sup? 10:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As always Parkwells, thanks for your feedback. You and I have a repertoire I can trust, and that's why I solicit your thoughts on these kinds of topics that I'm not completely clear about. Why regard to this specific article, I think the most important part of the topic of the first black president is not necessarily the individual points within the piece, but rather the wide-ranging cultural impact of the topic. The idea of a "first black president" is a big deal, and has been for some time in a lot of different ways. I think this article should call that purpose out, rather than be drawn apart for the individual points within about whose mom is from where and whatnot. • Freechild'sup? 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You were able to add muscle to the weak bones I'd written. • Freechild'sup? 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like this is causing you some consternation Parkwells- hope its a good struggle for you. I think its definitely important to keep in mind that is just one part of the article. When articles and edits really concern me I make a point of watching the article, waiting for the commotion to die down, and then when all's quiet I get right in there and mangle it the way I want things to be. That way there isn't a peanut gallery waiting to undue important edits, and that way we demonstrate the long range investment we make in these articles. That's important to me, and something I certainly value about what you've done with the articles we've collaborated on- you don't lay off them. That's cool. Same thing with this one. "JAA" - Just Another Article. • Freechild'sup? 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been looking forward to the opportunity to link to your article

]

Cite templates

Have you considered using standard cite templates in your editing. That way when Wikipedia changes its style, lets say years in italics, title in bold, date in the EU format or the ISO format, every one can be changed by just changing the template. The date style just changed again last week. Your way each will have to be done by hand one by one. You can move them to your user page and just cut and paste as needed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• <ref>{{cite book |author= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |author= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |work=[[New York Times]] |date= |accessdate=2024-05-06 }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |work=[[Time magazine]] |date= |accessdate=2024-05-06 }}</ref>

If you need more take them from my user page. Remember if you are going to move them make sure you are in edit mode so you get the no-wiki markup on either end. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pernessa C. Seele, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Park. Nice place you've got here. If

]

Hey, ChildofMidnight - I didn't originate the article and didn't really remember/know about Douglass. He was invited to speak at the 1888 Republican Convention, and received one vote during roll call. That's not really like being a candidate in the sense of this article. I think the basic idea of the Candidates article was to deal with candidates who entered the primary process that had evolved in the 20th century, after the time when nominations used to be settled at conventions, and to focus on serious candidates who ran campaigns. But I'm guessing, since it's not my article. I believe Shirley Chisholm's article and she considered herself the first African-American candidate running for a major party nomination. She did not run a national campaign through all the primaries as Jackson later did. I'm not familiar with how extensive Sharpton's and Keyes' campaigns were - someone else can research them, and maybe it's worth setting some criteria as to who should be discussed in the article. --Parkwells (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)--Parkwells (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was mostly just curious. I think the way it's explained in the article now is pretty reasonable. Thanks for your work and contributions on making the article better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reminder that history is often deeper than we know. It's good that someone made up the long lists.--Parkwells (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On African American candidates for president of the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Dravecky (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about copy edit~ing this article, if you have some time. Swedish cuisine

Cheers Warrington (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Black president in popular culture (United States), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Dravecky (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested removing the NPOV tag on Institute of Pacific Relations and wonder if you approve or have further suggestions. If you approve, maybe it would be appropriate for you to remove it rather than me. I think the sections on the Congressional hearings could be condensed and sharpened using published research, but that is another stage. ch (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian dialect and spelling and not American[2]. In the Australia article you wrote emphasised with the American spelling (iz). The only time we use iz in Australia is for size. Bidgee (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did a lot of work on

]

Hi, Tony - yes, the new content came from the sources identified in the inline citations. In reading the articles again, I found it striking that some contemporary papers, the NY Times, for example, clearly identified ethnic white mobs attacking black neighborhoods, as well as noting the labor causes for the strife. They showed the troops were not just for overall crowd control, but posted specifically to protect the Black Belt, and called in to play to protect blacks on the street from white mobs. I felt this was worth pointing out, as it is too simple to describe it as a race riot and white (in a general sense) against black. Hostilities were based strongly among specific ethnic white working classes in South Side Chicago, both because it had been Irish territory and because blacks had been employed as strikebreakers at the stockyards, among other places. Class and economic issues were important. One account also talked about attacks by Sicilians against blacks in a North Side neighborhood, but that much detail did not seem necessary.--Parkwells (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Leonard Bloom (disambiguation page), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

It only lists one article, meaning that the disambiguation is unnecessary.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's

.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the

]

Yes, the "Iranian controversy" definitely needs a source citation. It was added by Roozbeh, who apparently had first-hand knowledge of the events, but couldn't locate a hard-copy reference. I'll ask him about it again. --Cuppysfriend (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe you started the list? You have tagged (most) entries as needing sources, but presumably you had some reason to suggest them? Babakathy (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Parkwells. I have made a small correction to your edit, the statement "since 1935 the center of the former Persian Empire has been in present-day Iran" is not an entirely accurate statement, as it implies that Iran is a new country and different from Persia. Iran has always been called Iran, please see [3] : "In 1935, one symbol of this renewal was [Reza Shah's] decision to change the international name officially from Persia ( a name used only by occidentals) to Iran, the name used by Iranians themselves for millennia.". --Kurdo777 (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help!

]

Jesse James

I'm not entirely certain I know what is going on with those two new editors who suddenly have issues. The editor this morning who is trashing the books removed the cites yesterday, using the rationale of spamming the book because it linked to pages from the book on google books. I reverted it and did so again this morning, when suddenly the problem is something different. I see that I bumped heads with you in responding and reverting, but as far as I can tell, everything is back in. I did a lot of the reference clean up in that article - finding the pages on google books and cleaning up the confusion. The editor also claimed "piggybacking" one source on with another (?) when the fact was that when some item appeared in more than one reference, every source that contained it was cited. I'm afraid this is going to be an issue and I'm glad someone else is paying attention. Sorry if I edit conflicted with you! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the James talk page. I am not two editors, and explained that I logged back in because my unnamed user # was not working. I also explained historical priority and have not changed my reasons. Both times I was clear in stating that there is blatant POV pushing and spamming of a book that is specious and part of historical revisionism meant to give credence to the Confederate cause. Plus, I also left in the book as a reference source. The point is that the Stiles book references the earlier works, and therefore cannot claim to be a source for the information, which I by and large left intact. If you research and prove a claim and I then cite you and claim to be co-discoverer, that is wrong. I have been clear and logical. Please do not distort what I have stated. I have tried to be fair to prior James scholars and fellow editors. And please do not call me a vandal when I am simply trying to balance the article into historic and logical fairness. Thank you. Johabir (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone^[who?] agrees that fans wearing war paint are mocking Native Americans; rather, they may be seen as trying to take on warrior characteristics to help their teams with spirit in the mock battles that sports events represent.

Hi, Parkwells. I think you may have noticed that I am finally giving this article the attention it deserves, and I am heartily sorry for neglecting it for as long as I have. I have a narrow window that I can take on these extremely depressing topics, so I'm taking advantage of it now. I have it listed at

, and I have nominated it for GA. There are some issues I would like to discuss with someone who knows a bit about the topic to determine what kind of weight should be given to some of the issues in the article.

I would very much appreciate your input either on the Peer Review page, or the article talk page. I would like to take it to FA, but I will have to spend some hours at a microfilm before I do that. I may expand information about the press response in 1923. Are you interested in helping to get it to FA? --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it easier to discuss edits than...not to. I don't know why you're making changes to the article, and I predict that I'll be asked to change it before it goes to FAC. I guess you have reasons for making your edits. I have reasons for mine. We need to get together and discuss our reasons and compromise on how the article reads. I'm making my edits based on sources and comments left at PR. I am afraid that you may undo what has been suggested and without talking about this, I may undo your stuff. You undo mine. We both get frustrated. It's easier to talk about what needs to be changed so we can understand it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up on this new article I've started. I'm going to continue working on it today, and then lay off tonight. I'd love to see your contribs. Hope you're doing well. • Freechild'sup? 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parkwells, just wanted to run some changes by you. I edited a piece of the Virginia article that you added back in March. First, I wanted to see if the sentence regarding manumission being inspired by Quakers and the revolution was indeed covered by the citation, here Philip Morgan's Slave Counterpoint. I also changed "Quaker missionaries" to "Quaker abolitionists" because I can't find much about actual "missionary" activities, more of an advocacy campaign.--Patrick «» 16:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your quality enhancements to

]

I came across an article the other day that I thought you might be interested in expanding. I was going to do it, but I've been busy lately with finals and some other stuff I've been trying to do. Mound Bayou, Mississippi was an all black community founded in the early 1800s as an autonomous body from the government - to be maintained and governed by African Americans only. It has a really neat history, and it was actually pretty successful. I was initially looking at the I. T. Montgomery House article, and the pdf listed for its NHL designation had a lot of information about the settlement. That pdf can be found here. I also found some resources on Google Books, including The World's Work - A Town Owned by Negros by Booker T. Washington, A Dark Journey - The Mound Bayou Proposition by Neil McMillen, and Black Heritage Sites - I. T. Montgomery House, Mound Bayou, Mississippi by Nancy Curtis that could be helpful. I knew you were interested in African American history, so I thought you might like to look into this. Cheers!

(Also, not to tell you how to run your talk page or anything, but have you thought about archiving old discussions?) --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read a help page or anything, so I may have done it differently, but I just copied/pasted this code:

{{Archive box|
: [[/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
}}

to the top of my user page and saved it, then clicked on the redlink it created to create the archive. Then I copied and pasted the old stuff from my talk page to the /Archive 1 page and saved both of them. You can probably look back in the edit history of my talk page if you want more detail, but it's pretty simple. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Alabama Barnstar
		I hereby award you the The Alabama Barnstar for your improvements to Alabama-related articles, all within the scope of WikiProject Alabama. Altairisfartalk 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please continue improving any articles that need it. Especially any of

Clotilde (slave ship) whenever you have time. Altairisfar_talk 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Black church GAR notice

]

Please comment at

WP:LOTM) 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Luther

Some good work there. Could you recheck your edit to the antisemitism section, which has left some raggedness? Cheers. qp10qp (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody seems to be saying thanks to you... rightly so... Wasn't there a Woody Allen movie called Everyone says I love you... Good edits on your part anyway....Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is odd, considering that pastoral is an article about the lifestyle of those who tend livestock. "Pastor" is Latin for "shepherd", so it seems appropriate that that's what that article would deal with. Maybe the article titled pastoral care is what you're looking for. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't followed the wiki link, but had thought there was probably an article on the religious meaning. Will use disambiguation to clarify.--Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4] --Epeefleche (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Parkwells. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at

]

Wentworth Cheswell

Hi, I saw you made several edits to

]

Black men, white women and sexuality

Is there no article about the widespread perception of black males being hypersexual, and the motivation to protect white (Southern) womanhood from it per

?

I don't even know what to call it. If it doesn't have a name, I don't even know where to look for info on it, but it clearly exists. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the

]

I have reverted your recent edits to the above article. Some of your edits were fine (such as changing the number "5" to the word "five"), but others were not (such as replacing the word "metaphore" with the word "symbols")... and unfortunately it is too difficult to distinguish which is which when you make so many edits all at the same time. May I suggest that you go a bit less boldly, and give other editors time to assimulate one edit before you move to the next. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Displacing my comments to discussion board is not enough. I would greatly appreciate if you kindly comment on the issues raised there.

My comments cast doubt about your objectivity and your impartiality. Should you fail to respond, I will presume that you have nothing to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector rod (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with the article based on my reading of the materials, and do not have the interest to undertake the detailed research you seem to have done. I did not find evidence that seemed to support Fabrikant's self-justification for his murders. Wikipedia policy suggests you should make the changes you believe are appropriate to the article, rather than attacking me. I'm not the only editor who has worked on the article, which is why discussion is more appropriate on its Talk page than on mine. If you want to work on Wikipedia, it is recommended that you set up a Talk page of your own, as well as using article discussion pages, and sign your comments to Talk pages.--Parkwells (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

]

Virginia Indian

Hi Parkwells I hope all is going well for you. I wanted your opinion on a terminology situation. Replacing the work "American Indian" or "Indian" with the term Native American. I'm concerned that the article Native American tribes in Virginia is taking a step backwards in using a term that is becoming less used and considered offensive because of the accidental naming of Native American people hundreds of years ago. The editor Sarah seem compelled to keep changing Native Ameriacn to Virginia Indian in the Pocahontas article. Also considering the fact that Indian is used in the Native American tribes in Virginia article which doesn't make sense due to the fact that the title says Native American.Mcelite (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mcelite- I understand terminology is a sensitive topic and ran into similar issues on the Native American article. There are many who prefer American Indian, and it doesn't appear that a consensus has really arisen for Native American. I did read one of Sarah's references in the Nansemond article, which is a lengthy statement by the Council on Virginia Indians (published by the Commonwealth of VA), made up of representatives of state-recognized tribes. They have said "Virginia Indian" is their preference, unless the specific tribal name is used. So, I think it's not a bad idea to use what they want, although it may be hard to please everyone and hard for non-Indians to keep up.--Parkwells (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to put Virginia back up for Featured Article Candidate, and hope that the third time's the charm. I wanted to get in touch with you before I do to make sure there wasn't anything on it you remember needing work, and that you'd support it when it goes up. I was aiming for the end of next week, so just give me a nod before then if there's anything. Thanks for your help.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why you erased all the work I did adding to this article? I also noticed you made a change to a reference that I had actually put in and noticed had added something to it I had not intended. I also moved the information about who is in the picture simply because it seemed better placed nearer to the picture. This became more evident to me as a good idea simply because I was adding more information to it and that description was then getting farther away from the article. I was not done with adding to this article either, as evidenced by my notes on it being a work in progress. I have seen you editing several articles about the tribe in Virginia and think you have added a lot and I was simply adding more to this page, as well as a few others. In that sense I do not get why you would erase all of the information I had already added to the article. I also noticed you got a comment from Mcelite about me and my using the term Virginia Indian. If you are interested in my side and why I use it simply look at the discussion about it on the Pocahontas page (just in case you are interested at all). I will not immediately add the information back, but since it is relevant, and all cited, I do plan to add it back as I think the article needs to be expanded. This is especially true since there is information out there in which to expand it. Sorry this ended up be so long, lol. Hope to hear from you sometime soon. Sarah1607 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I guess I was not clear before, but when you reverted by edit because you thought something had been removed it actually hadn't been. I simply had moved the picture description so it was closer to the actual picture. That alone was why I was so baffled by you reverting my edit since I had also added so much to the article that was then removed by your revert.

As for the wiki style, I am still new at this so thanks for the help with that. I will try to follow that format from now on. I get your point about the timeline information so I have since removed it from the article. I figure it will be easy enough to put back into the article should I find another source with that, or similar information. In the end, I am glad to see you appreciated my hard work and have used the sources I provided to expand the article more-something I would have done myself, but you beat me to it ;-) I see you found a great source as well, one I was going to use to do the same thing you did (connecting your paragraph about African Americans and the Nansemond to the Bass family, which makes the connection a lot more clear). Thanks again for the apology as I do appreciate it.Sarah1607 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Parkwells! If you find that you have the time, could you look over the Cherokee article? I've decided to finally tackle the behemoth and edit it down to a reasonable size. I created a Cherokee military history article but want to wait a few days or so for other people's input before replacing the military sections in Cherokee with a summary. Other sections of the article are verbose, factually questionable, and redundant. Any input by you would be greatly appreciated! Best, Uyvsdi (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I'm not going to tell you you suck, per my response on my talk page, but I reverted your changes to Tipping the Velvet and I wanted to explain why.

The article is bound for FAC, where brilliant writing is an integral component. In your revision, you shortened compound sentences, breaking some in two. That interrupts the flow and movement of words and directly negates the ease of reading the article in its entirety. You removed clauses at the beginning of sentences such as The (mis)understandings of what social norms existed during the period are what drew Waters..., Astonished and deeply bruised by the discovery, Nan wanders..., and The greatest literary strengths in Tipping the Velvet, according to reviewers and literary scholars, are expressed... that draw the reader into the sentence and compel them to go further. You removed topic sentences for sections that are essential in relaying the concepts yet to come, preparing the reader for a basic understanding supported by cites and quotes. Diversity of sentence structure is something I had to learn through several FA constructions, and probably did not "get it" fully until my 5th FA. I make conscious decisions to differentiate sentence starts and paragraph starts per Tony1's guide to writing.

You furthermore removed important facts from the lead, such as it being Waters' first novel. You created a one-sentence paragraph. You split a succinct three-paragraph plot summary into four. As I said in my edit summary, I am willing to make some compromises if you feel strongly that some things should not be in the article, but I have read through this article countless times constantly tweaking to make it flow. Everything in the article is there for a reason. It may not be something you agree with, but I do have my reasons for putting words and sentences in certain order. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You reverted. Mind explaining why your judgment here is better than mine as expressed in the above statement? Are you willing to get this settled with someone else who is experienced in FA writing, such as

talk · contribs)? --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Moni, you have clearly worked hard on this article. We disagree on whether FA "brilliant writing" includes so much passive voice construction, but any two people will find different ways to approach articles, which is what Wikipedia is based on. It seemed more like a literary review than encyclopedia article to me, which is what prompted some of the changes. But it's all yours to revert in total. I will work elsewhere.--Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About 18 months ago you raised an objection to the content of the page

and I would like to get the POV claim taken care of. What specifically do you object to, or may I take down the dispute flag?

Feel free to email me directly: Tim Davenport --> [email protected]

Thanks. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parkwells,

As for your latest addition to the

]

Thanks for the reminder, Vihelik. I've added it - a rather basic article in the Oklahoma Encyclopedia, but I was intrigued by it. I need to get back to looking for the original work behind it.--Parkwells (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just left a new discussion topic at Talk:Beaver Wars, I was thinking about posting it here on your talkpage to get your response, but linking it here should be enough. Cheers, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on fixing this page ! Emargie (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly enjoyed your trip to "California", improving so many articles. Look forward to seeing you out here again. Thanks Emargie (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]