Jump to content

User talk:Eb.hoop/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sherman's Special Field Orders, No. 15

I apologize for tagging this. You're right it is a significant piece of history. I must have tagged it by accident. Thanks! Mmeinhart 12:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Carl (David) Anderson's discovery of the muon

Why did you change my edit that attributed the discovery of the muon to Carl Anderson [1]? Clearly, the famed singer/actor played an invaluable part! --Diberri | Talk 18:29, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Such, Such Were the Joys

Good article that can't let decent contributions go by without comment. MeltBanana 21:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contra

Can you source your claim that contra means counterrevolutuionary, from a dictionary or some sources that has nothing to do with the contras, SqueakBox July 2, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

And Welcome!

Hello, Eb.hoop/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox July 2, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

Iz u is goff or summit?--131.111.8.103 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicaragua Canal

Hi Eb, I overall like your rewrite of the lead of Nicaragua Canal, but have some comments, and am thinking of making further changes. Would you like to discuss at Talk:Nicaragua Canal (which I think is the best place to record this)? Johantheghost 12:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Paul Dirac

Hi - Could you update Wikipedia:External peer review/Nature December 2005/Errors so that people will know what needs to be worked on. Thanks for your help on this article. PAR 23:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Response on "EHM" Talk Page

Just an FYI. Carry on.....

(Antelope In Search Of Truth 21:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

Sherman

I'm pushing Sherman for featured article. Not many people have responded, but one objection was that it could use more footnotes, which I've been working on. Could you provide a reference for the information you added a while ago for Vicksburg and Chattanooga? The article now uses to new foonote format, so this should be easy to add: You just need to include <ref>Text of foonote</ref> at the appropriate point in the article. (See also WP:FN). Thanks. -- Eb.hoop 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with the footnoting mechanism. I have my references at home, so will take a look at this in the evening (Pacific Time). In general, I have not felt it necessary to footnote each assertion in an article if the References listed support the information, reserving footnotes for obscure or controversial assertions. For example, I rarely see date of birth footnoted by anyone and I have done it myself only in those cases where authorities disagree. However, since you are attempting to beef up the footnotes for this article, I will see what I can do. Hal Jespersen 16:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Always painful to see text rearranged, but I appreciate that you are stylisticly guiding this article. Two quibbles about quotes: The letter to his wife about 'crazy' was a nice justification for the analysis of the preceding two sentences and I'm surprised you deleted it. I omitted the Shiloh quote about the Apr 6 pm meeting because it says much more about Grant than Sherman. It's in the battle article I wrote, although not in Grant's bio; probably should be, but Shiloh rates only a short paragraph there. Hal Jespersen 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your question about the Sherman wife quote. I got that from Daniel's Shiloh and the footnote (which unfortunately covers the entire paragraph) cites "Sherman Testimony, Worthington Court-Martial Proceedings, NA; Marszalek, Sherman, p. 176; McDonough, Shiloh, p. 53." I have none of those in print and cannot find them online, unfortunately. At Amazon.com you can search through Sherman's Selected Correspondence and there is reference to "crazy" (shown in quotation marks) in this context, but it is not possible to determine where that quote comes from because you cannot access the footnotes on Amazon, apparently. Also there on Marszalek p 176 it says (can't check its footnote):

On April 4, Sherman received the ultimate reassurance: Grant saw no threat of enemy activity against his forces; an attack against Lew Wallace at Crump's Landing was only a remote possibility. Sherman's respect for Grant gave him no reason to question his commander now, especially since "they'd call me crazy again" if he did.

That connection to Grant is rather a minority view, from what I have read. As an interesting alternative story, Nevin's Time-Life book The Road to Shiloh has the following on page 111 (which would be pretty devastating if it were accurate):

Yet Sherman may have had second thoughts; he told the newspapermen that the army was in danger. Startled, the reporter asked why he did not sound the alarm. "Oh," said Sherman, "they just say I was crazy again."

Hal Jespersen 01:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

quotes & dates

A couple of comments on your recent edits (this article is turning out quite well--congrats):

Hal Jespersen 15:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. As to the Quotation template, it is a rather new device and I have not yet seen it used a lot. as with a lot of things in Wikipedia, I found it by accident. The reasons I like it are that it makes quotes quite distinctive and also provides a built-in place to show the source at the bottom. Sometimes the block quotes get it skewed, particularly if there are a lot of graphics moving the margins in and out. (One disadvantage, however, is that there seems to be a bug in which the quotation block and right-aligned graphics overlap in an unusual way. I assume that is something that will be fixed by the Wikipedia gods.) I plan to use it for any of my Civil War articles in which the quotation is more than two or three sentences long. Hal Jespersen 01:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints. You can sign up on the page and add the following userbox to your user page.

This user is a member of the Saints WikiProject.



Thanks! --evrik 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Mucking alert on William Tecumseh Sherman

Perhaps I'm overreacting, but FA is a delicate thing. BusterD 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Soooooo glad you arrived. BusterD 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Such Such were the Joys

Thanks you for your interest and contributions. I think the article is very good in picking out some powerful pieces of writing by Orwell (Blair), which he was able to generate using his time at St Cyprian's as the background. However the term "autobiographical" suggests an accurate account of the author's life. The covering article itself acknowledges that SSWTJ's accuracy is questionable (for which there is extensive evidence that would occupy several pages). It was libellous and Orwell himself did not publish it. The problem is that it has been taken as a true account of Orwell's childhood, resulting in even worse calumnies being perpetrated by uninformed commentators. I hope this explains the change I made, which I acknowledge made very clumsy drafting and which I intended to refine. Motmit 19:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should attach to the adjective "autobiographical" the requirement of verifiable accuracy. An autobiography may or may not be wholly truthful. Many are not.
This takes us to the separate problem of whether SSWTJ is truthful. I've read several of the critiques of it and while it seems likely to me that Orwell's subjective appreciations of the Wilkes and their school were unfair, I do find it hard to believe that he deliberately falsified his recollections to the extent that is often claimed. He does not seem to have had anything to gain by the falsification, since the essay was unlikely even to be published (as it indeed was not until after his death) and it would have required an extraordinary degree of malice in one as ostensibly preoccupied with truth and memory as Orwell. -- Eb.hoop 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Adam Smith

Thanks for catching and restoring the biographical information for Adam Smith. It made me notice that a whole other section (Works) had been removed, so I restored it. I hope the article is back into decent shape. Sbowers3 18:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sherman/Halleck

Do you know if Sherman and Halleck ever reconciled after their spat in April 1865? Sherman barely mentions him in his Memoirs after the episode, so I suspect not.Khan_singh 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jose Maria Figueres

After some research and working with the text, I have uploaded a version of this article which I believes removes the political bias that lead you to put up the NPOV tag. Let me know if you agree to remove the tag. Brioni —Preceding comment was added at 20:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Image source problem with Image:Wps-cit05.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Wps-cit05.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Wps-cit05.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wps-cit05.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Politzer.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Politzer.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Duke of Beaconsfield?

Do you know of any sources confirming that Lord Beaconsfield was offered a Dukedom by Queen Victoria in 1878, as stated in the article Earl of Beaconsfield? Opera hat (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Tristancanc.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tristancanc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eb.hoop/Archive_1&oldid=864127628"