User talk:NoSeptember/archives/history

Return to the NoSeptember:

Thanks

For the Mi-Ma flag fix on the capitals page. jengod 18:39, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re Capitols for capitals...that's gonna be a LOT of domes. :) jengod 22:31, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Related talk: here

Re: Links to previous and next Senate elections.

You know, I think the links to next and previous elections were there before the template was created, and I never took them out when I cut-and-pasted to create more articles.

I would agree that they are duplicative; I think the template is far easier to navigate with, so the duplicate lines can probably go. (although the cross-links to House and Presidential elections should probably stay) Willhsmit 19:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Related talk: here

Image fix

Rather of a kludge than a fix - I'm not sure it is that elegant - but it does the job. Ideally, the lead would be a paragraph longer so the issue would go away... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Related talk: here

Ages of popes move

Well, when I first saw it, I thought its definitely more of a list of ages of popes (ie its not about the ages of popes, but lists them), so I thought I'd move it to conform to the "list of X" convention. Then I realized, as the heaing says, its only since 1500. I considered this. I looked in the history and saw it hadn't been edited in a month. If there had been editing recently I wouldn't have touched it, since all of the popes could be coming in. I think that if the current format were extended to all 260+ popes, it'd be huge, so I didn't see any harm in splitting it up. Ideally there will be a general introductory page at ages of popes about the meaning of papal ages, and then links to the periodized lists. See Imperial Russia for what I think is a decent example. Anyway, it is a long name, but I'm not sure how that could be fixed. Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 20:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I guess the "Roman Catholic" isn't necessary, that I just wrongly assumed was normal. Weird, that, since there are Coptic popes. Anyway, I didn't see any double redirects. --Dmcdevit 20:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the name is really that big of a deal. Just trying to make it clear. Have you thought of trying to get it up to FLC standards? --Dmcdevit 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well if you are interested, I'd say it needs some references, a good lead section and image(s). But the content itself and and the tables are great. --Dmcdevit 21:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Related talk: here

Lists (Potuslists)

Better? Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents jengod 19:16, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Related talk: here

Lincoln-Kennedy

I apologize for the mistakes, I have not done this before. Thanks for the fixes. --LibraryLion 21:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is just one other one. Can you delete the article Denver's Spiderman as I should have titled it Denver Spiderman. The articles are exactly the same. Thanks. --LibraryLion 22:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are now merged. NoSeptember ^talk 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here

INVITATION (WikiProject Military history)

You need to come join us in our efforts over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related talk: here and here

gross factual errors (Bonnie & Clyde)

This has been my first interaction with your site, I came upon it by accident, though I do recall hearing about it having some credibility issues on the news in the past year. I am not familiar with all of your complicated protocols, but what I do know is that there are large quantities of gross factual errors in the article on Frank Hamer by old windy bear. I even saw that he was chastised and forced to edit the article some back in January by katefan & phadriel. Unfortunately, there are still massive problems and errors and erroneous conclusions drawn from those errors. I have attempted to address just a few of them civily with the writer to no avail, as he insulted me from the beggining and his own cites contradict his claims. i do admit that I then responded curtly to his insults and denial. Though I did try to soften my rhetoric at one point early on, stating that I would accept that his errors were in good faith, but he responded with attacks and insults still, because the facts don not support his argument. Will you please review all the history and advise me as to what course to follow to get that article either heavily revised or removed? I will no longer repond to his childish insults, and will wait for your, or any admin's reply. thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.224.128 (talk • contribs) .

This old windy bear's attempts to defend his biased and inaccurate article are as replete with ignorance of the topic as the article itself. And the fact that he cries and whines about "insults" while he continues to lob them at all who offer critique of his articles further diminishes his already lacking credibility.

As he refuses to attach his real name and credentials for verification to this or any other article, I recommend that all articles by him be removed. A quick review of the discussion history around his "work" will easily provide your organization with justification to do so. He claims to be a "54 year old historian" but without specifics to verify, just as in his articles, I have serious doubts as to that claim as well.

The documents and other sources he cites all either contradict his claims, were produced by individuals with recognized biases and agendas in the matter, such as relatives of Bonnie & Clyde (check them out, it's true), or are even works of fiction by their own admission (The Gene Shelton book is a NOVEL)

His complete lack of knowledge on the topic of how rangers were commissioned in those days is frightening. He is continuing to argue in the face of over whelming evidence (the very document that he cites which shows itself to have been VOID Feb 1 1933) He claims that the fact that it is on file with the Texas State Library & Archive as "proof" that it was "permanent" No real historian could be so ignorant. The archive maintains ALL old ranger commissions from the period before the creation of DPS in Texas. (I bet old windy bear doesn't know a thing about what that signifies)

He argues that "scholars" have refuted this that or the other, yet conveniently, he never names any specific "scholars" and his article cites primarily non-scholars and works of self-described fiction.

He also is ignorant of the fact that the "special investigator" position created by Lee Simmons in order to hire Hamer did not come with any actual law enforcement authority at the time, which is why Hamer needed the state highway patrolman commission, so that he would have the powers of arrest and to carry firearms.

It is of significant interest that old windy bear both cites the book "I'm Frank Hamer" (by recognized scholars John H. Jenkins & H Gordon Frost - and you might want to review the list of contributing / assisting scholars in the acknowledgements, as well as the many sources in the bibliography, a feature many of the books that old windy bear cites don't even have) erroneously refers to it as an "autobiography" repeatedly in his "article" (the subject had been DEAD for 15 years - old windy bear also got the date of death wrong) and cites it repeatedly, but then, conveniently, disputes its veracity on points that undermine his claims and agenda. The only sources he has offered that have "long discredited" that work are by recognized NON-scholars: people looking to make a buck, or defend Bonnie and, or Clyde, and with no scholarly background, which is plainly evident upon review of their work.

If this site continues to pass the buck and take no action in this matter, it will be no surprise, although a disappointment, as I was hoping that you all had learned your lesson after having been so incredibly humiliated in the national press this past year.

You will not be able to say that you were not provide due notice.

PS - Old windy bear, name for me one major University that will accept wikipedia as a cite in scholarly historical research. be assured that I will contact any institution that you venture to name in order to verify your claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.224.128 (talk • contribs) .

Related talk: here