User talk:Yeoman(F)
Welcome!
Getting StartedTutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Tips- Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
- It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
- If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
- Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
- When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
- If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
- Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.
Happy editing! Cheers, Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Please make sure to add sources to your edits, especially when removing already cited material. While your text is correct, it may not be clear to others why you have removed the incorrect information. I will add the citations. Do let me know if you have any questions or need any help. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
SPARs
Thank you for your recent edits of the article SPARs. However, the two additions you made to the'Bibliography section are problematic and require your immediate attention. Pendright (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pendright. For whatever reason, I was unable to make the additions using visual and attempted to make them using source. I couldn't figure out how to correct the problems. Do you have a suggestion? Thanks in advance. 141.156.195.148 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed - just seen your post. On second thought, regarding your recent edit, I think acknowledged is the better of either word in the circumstances, what do you think? Pendright (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pendright,
- Thank you for all your help and suggestions. I changed the language to reflect that the group of women was first. I used the word "recognized" instead of "acknowledged" because the latter word might imply that the Coast Guard knew about this group of women (which it did not). I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
- Sincerely,
- Yeoman(F) Yeoman(F) (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I went back to the source of—first Hispanic to serve in the Coast Guard—to check the verbiage and it differs a bit from what we have been working with. So, I plan to revise the current language to generally follow that of the source. BTW, in one of your edits you deleted the citation relative to this phrase, which I will fix. "Women in the U. S. Coast Guard: Moments in History". United States Coast Guard. 22 February 2023. Retrieved January 29, 2024.
- I am unable to find this phrase in the source you used:
- Vojvodich, Donna (September 23, 2022). "The Long Blue Line: Latina SPARs—Minority trailblazers of World War II". Retrieved May 10, 2024. Pendright (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pendright,
- Would you like more of the story? The Long Blue Line article (as a whole) recognized the first Latina SPARs in the Coast Guard. After the article about the Latina SPARs was published, a retired member of the Coast Guard told a group that a different woman was the first Hispanic/Latina to serve in the Coast Guard. Somebody else questioned whether that was the correct person. They read the Long Blue Line article, determined it was Christine Valdez, and published that in The Moments in History. Moments in History uses the words "first known" because the Coast Guard did not record that statistic during the war. There may be somebody else who was first. This is why I believe it is more accurate to use the word "recognized" and to include the group.
- Thoughts? Yeoman(F) (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thought about this some more. I think the word "identified" is better than "recognized." Yeoman(F) (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed - just seen your post. On second thought, regarding your recent edit, I think acknowledged is the better of either word in the circumstances, what do you think? Pendright (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
According to my dictionary, recognize can mean:
- identify (someone or something)
- acknowledge the existence, validity, or legality of
- And they can mean"
- Identify establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is
- acknowledge accept or admit the existence or truth of
- And they can mean"
Pendright (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the history lesson. We'll go with identified, but I'll need something specific to hang my hat on so I'll cite Moments in History for Christine Valdez. For the rest of the group, the current source will stand. I've tweaked your post a bit, so if you're uncomfortable with anything let me know why. Pendright (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)