Welcome!

Hello Spacini, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some good places to get you started:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

— FireFox • T • 20:59, 10 March 2006

Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I came across your Kentucky battlefield articles. I just wanted to thank you for bringing this information to Wikipedia. As someone with a strong interest in the U.S. Civil War, I greatly appreciated your contributions. Thank you! Pastor Theo ( talk) 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thanks! Spacini ( talk) 03:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I know you said you were planning to start creating articles for Kentucky's Confederate military units. I ran across some info last night I thought I'd share. E. Polk Johnson's A History of Kentucky and Kentuckians gives some good information about the formation and action of the 11th Kentucky Cavalry on page 794. The unit was raised in Richmond just after the Battle of Richmond by a man named David Walter Chenault. The unit participated in Morgan's Raid, and Chenault was killed at the Battle of Tebbs Bend. James B. McCreary, later twice-governor of Kentucky, took command following Chenault's death. Because of this, there might be more info on the 11th Cavalry than many other Confederate units. Powell's Kentucky Governors mentions that the unit may have been called the 7th Kentucky Cavalry at some point. Hope this helps you get a start. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

		WikiProject Kansas Award
		For outstanding work in creating the Kansas Civil War regiment articles. Keep up the good work! ilamb94 ( talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you have been attributing text in some of your edits (eg this one), which is of course the correct thing to do. However I notice that you have been attributing the same source in a lot of articles. I think it would be a good idea if you were to create a specific template for that source, so that the articles that rely on "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick Henry Dyer" can all be placed in an separate specific category. (one of the reasons I had for writing the general template was to flag frequent usage like this). You will find example that you can use at Category:Attribution templates. If you decide to implement one, although I am no expert on them, I will help you if you run into problems. -- PBS ( talk) 11:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree 100% and will be happy to do this ... once I have learned how. Hope to have it in place by Monday. Thank you for the excellent suggestion. -- Spacini ( talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have written it (See {{ CWR}}) and have altered one article 10th Ohio Infantry to use it. It places the article in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion but because it is a hidden category it does not appear in the category list at the bottom of the article. If you wish to move the articles into different numbers then see {{ DEFAULTSORT}} -- PBS ( talk) 12:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

For example {{DEFAULTSORT|Ohio Infantry, 10th}} will move the entry from "1" to "o". -- PBS ( talk) 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

To do mass repetitive edits of articles, consider using Wikipedia:AWB -- PBS ( talk) 12:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much! I have a toddler and didn't get a chance to do the work I had planned. I'll start adding these to the articles I have created. Spacini ( talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

So you're in the "I've move the ornaments onto the top shelf" stage in life! I ran AWB today and altered all the source-attribution templates containing "A Compendium of ..." to {{ CWR}}. The categories take a little time to update and I'll have to wait and see how many I've missed due to slightly different strings. AWB is quite a strict disiplinarian and it also looks for non standard things to alter when run on a page. In this case the only think it seemed to spot was that the section "See also" came after the "References" section, so I allowed it to fix that "mistake". TTFN -- PBS ( talk) 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for some clarification on the Wilkinson article. I have Harrison's Kentucky's Governors, but I try to expand one source at a time and hadn't gotten there yet. I hope to get the article ready for GA in the next week or two. Any sources, etc. you can find are most welcome. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 14:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm the author of the Wilkinson chapter in Kentucky's Governors. Dr. Harrison didn't want too much on the Wilkinsons' financial problems, but given that much of it was in place before he became governor and started to unravel while he was in office, it was hard not to write about it at length. Took me several weeks just to sort through all of the articles and documents about the court cases and distill it down to a few paragraphs. I'd love to see the Wilkinson article get GA status; thanks for taking the time to get it polished. I'll help where I can. - Spacini ( talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding the use of quotation marks around the name "Glenn" in the name of Gov. Wilkinson's son, it was meant to convey that Glenn is the name he goes by. Is my premise incorrect or my punctuation? Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Your premise is 100% correct, he does use Glenn. However, it's just the punctuation that's incorrect. My understanding of using quotation marks for names, is only if the name is a nickname. - Spacini ( talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Just finished my work on the Wilkinson article. Would you give it a once-over before I nominate it for GA? Just drop me a note on my talk page when you've finished your review. Thanks! Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Having done some preliminary work on the Brereton Jones article, I didn't realize that the feud between he and Wilkinson stemmed from KERA. Can you point me in the right direction of some reading on that? A free online source would be great, but I also have access to most articles from the Herald-Leader and Kentucky Post for the past 30 years or so via my library. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I've decided to move ahead with my GA nom of the Wilkinson article. It frequently takes a month or two to get a GA review, and even if a review comes earlier, I believe the article is broad in coverage, which is the GA standard, even without the information about the feud between Wilkinson and Jones. I'll be working on the Jones article more in the near future as well, and I can make improvements to both articles as I continue to research. Again, any resources you can point me to are welcomed. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 18:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to have excellent sources on Civil War soldiers and units, so I'm turning to you for some help, if possible. I'm composing an article on Parker Watkins Hardin, several times attorney general of Kentucky and three time gubernatorial candidate. Many texts refer to him as "General Hardin", yet I cannot find even the briefest mention of his military service. He was born in 1841, so I consider it likely that he served in the Civil War. A passage from Klotter's Decades of Discord mentions that the entire slate of Democratic candidates in 1883 (which included Hardin) was composed of ex-Confederate soldiers or Confederate sympathizers. This leads me to believe that Hardin was probably a Confederate officer. Complicating the research is the fact that his name is variously given as "Parker", "Watt", "P. Wat", "P. W.", and even a nickname "Polly Wolly"! I cannot fathom how someone could rise to a generalship and not have a single thing written about their military service. Can you give me anything to go on? Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 15:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking a look. I hadn't thought of "General" being a reference to "attorney general". Perhaps that is the case. Seems odd that no source would mention his military service if he had any. If you're curious, look for the article to show up at DYK soon. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing 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. Courcelles ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. I have noticed your ACW edits for a long time and admire the sense of quality you put to the task. A brief question: what does CE refer to in an edit summary? Hal Jespersen ( talk) 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Hal, many thanks for your note and the compliment. CE stands for copy editing. Basically, it's editing for proper grammar, punctuation, complete sentences, clarity, and subject/verb agreement. Incidentally, I'm a great fan of your ACW maps. They're simply outstanding. Best wishes. Spacini ( talk) 02:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, thank you! I had no clue about copy editing. I was thinking continuous enhancement or something. Confederate ennoblement. :-) Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. Let's discuss the battle of Fort Stevens here rather than reverting each other. Two points. When you make a statement in an article such as "it was the only the second time" that something happened, it behooves you to identify the first time, either parenthetically or in a footnote. Second, I do not have the Wills book, but did some searching of the contents on Google and Amazon, where I could find no mention of Madison participating directly in the battle or his cabinet being almost captured. In fact, I found a reference to him and his cabinet back in Washington. The Wikipedia article on James Madison mentions nothing about this incident. The article on the battle of Bladensburg does mention it in the aftermath section, although it does not cite the assertion. Doing some other searches around the web came up with nothing. If you are convinced that the Wills book indicates he participated directly in the battle – was under fire, as Lincoln was at Fort Stevens – can you please add an appropriate citations of the Fort Stevens article, including page numbers? Thanks, and best regards. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Will do! I thought it was well-known that Madison had seen action at Bladensburg. My War of 1812 materials are in storage and I'll have to dig them out. Bladensburg is a fascinating battle and isn't entirely the "cut and run" battle that it has been described as. Secretary of War Monroe is actually to blame for a lot of the problems there after he got involved and started changing the military commanders' plans. This will take me a couple of weeks to get to as I am on vacation. In the meantime, check out the discussion on the Battle of Fort Stevens talk page. The topic was brought up a couple of years ago (not by me) and apparently dismissed due to lack of citations. Also, feel free to revert it back until I have the sources. Cheers! Spacini ( talk) 19:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Here is an additional data point. I found online a copy of Glenn Tucker's Poltroons and Patriots (Bobbs-Merrill, 1954) and in vol 2, p. 537, he writes:

These dispositions were being completed when a mounted detachment halted in the rear of Winder's position and surveyed the spectacle of an American army making ready for combat. It was Mr. Madison, the President, wearing his dueling pistols and accompanied by Rush, Wadsworth and others of his entourage. Except for Lincoln's visit to Fort Stevens on the 7th Street pike during Jubal Early's raid on Washington, when Mr. Lincoln was within range of desultory firing, this appearance by Mr. Madison at Bladensburg constitutes the only presence of the commander in chief with an American army in battle. ... President Madison nearly was guilty of wandering into the center of the British Army. He left the rear and rode through the heart of the American position until he reached the East Branch bridge into Bladensburg, which he was about to cross when an American scout told him he was already in no man's land and that the enemy was just over Lowndes Hill. He turned back and met Monroe, who informed him of the American alignment and the approach of the British.

So Monroe's actual actions are still a bit ambiguous, but I think that Tucker would have worded his claim differently if Monroe had been under fire, as Lincoln had. Perhaps it would be best to word the Wikipedia article about Lincoln at Fort Stevens in the way that Tucker did. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 23:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have added a citation for President Madison and some of his cabinet members coming under enemy fire (Congreve rockets) at the Battle of Bladensburg to the article on the Battle of Fort Stevens. I also corresponded with the book's author, Anthony Pitch who verified again that Madison was under fire at the battle, but that he did not take up any arms or fire any artillery. While I'm not comfortable sharing Professor Pitch's email address publicly, I'll gladly ask him to contact you Hal, if you still aren't convinced that Madison wasn't under enemy fire. Spacini ( talk) 01:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Nope, this level of specificity from a reliable source is good enough for me. Thank you for researching. (I am now unwatching your page.) Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi. Since I have temporarily been watching your user page in conjunction with the Madison issue, I noticed the public domain squabble you are having with a bot. I have a superior reference citation for Dyer's work, which you may find useful because it has a link to an online copy:

• Dyer, Frederick H. A Compendium of the War of Rebellion: Compiled and Arranged From Official Records of the Federal and Confederate Armies, Reports of the Adjutant Generals of the Several States, The Army Registers and Other Reliable Documents and Sources. Dayton, OH: Morningside Books, 1978. ISBN 978-0-89029-046-0. First published 1908 by Dyer Publishing.

Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, friend. Me again. Hoping you might be able to track down the Civil War service of another politician. According to the National Governors Association, Governor John Y. Brown enlisted as a cavalry colonel in the Confederate Army during the war, but none of my other sources about Brown mention such service. I don't know a lot about military ranks, but it seems to me that colonel is a non-trivial rank, and some record should exist of his service if he indeed had such a rank. Do you know or can you find out anything about this? Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

There is no credible evidence that Brown served as a colonel in the Confederate service during the war. He was living in Henderson, Kentucky during the war and was definitely a Confederate sympathizer, which caused him to be denied being seated in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1866 when he was elected. ( John W. Stevenson--himself a "states-righter", if not a full-fledged Confederate sympathizer--gave a passionate thrashing to Congress for denying Brown his seat in Congress for having been a sympathizer. No mention is made of any CS service.) Being a native Kentuckian, I can assure you that "colonel" is a very trivial title (I'm a Kentucky Colonel myself). It's possible that Brown achieved an actual colonel's rank in the state militia either before or after the war, but as for CSA service, there's not a shred of evidence for it. Spacini ( talk) 19:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. As NGA is known to miss sometimes, I figured this might be the case. I can't find mention of any military service, militia or otherwise, outside this one source. Also being a native Kentuckian, I'm aware of the worthlessness of the Kentucky Colonel rank; I was thinking of the actual military rank, not the ceremonial honor. I'll remove this error from Brown's article. I think it's almost FA-worthy now, but I doubt I'll get around to nominating it for a while yet. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 14:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply

I've got this article at FAC now and the question has come up about what, exactly, Brown was doing during the Civil War. None of the sources I've seen give any specifics. Can you point me in the direction of a source that gives some elaboration? Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I've got a professor buddy of mine in Henderson looking at some local sources that I do not have access to. Should have an answer in a couple of days. Brown biographer Robert Ireland states, "During the Civil War he grew progressively disenchanted with the Union, so much so that the House refused to seat him for alleged disloyalty following his election to that body in 1866." (Kentucky's Governors (2004), p. 123) Given his second marriage in 1860, which produced eight children, I suspect that he simply attempted to remain neutral, raised his family, and practiced law. Spacini ( talk) 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Any word from your friend yet? I'm afraid it is going to look like I've abandoned the nomination if I can't give them something soon. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Nothing new turned up, other than Brown moved to Henderson following the Civil War. During the war, he was in Nelson County, Kentucky. Spacini ( talk) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Nelson County? What do we make of this, then? On page 102, Brown is identified by Stovepipe Johnson as one of the city leaders of Henderson. This event was sometime between the Battle of Shiloh and the Newburgh Raid in 1862. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 17:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Sorry, that was a mis-reading on my part. Powell says that Brown was living in Hardin County, practicing law in Elizabethtown prior to the war. When he moved to Henderson is a matter of great confusion. Even the article here states that he moved to Henderson after the Civil War. Perhaps an email to the Centre College archivist could shed some light on this. They keep really good records on their notable alumni. Spacini ( talk) 19:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hmm, hadn't realized that the article contradicted Stovepipe Johnson's account until you pointed it out. That the time and circumstances of his move to Henderson are unclear might be enough to relieve the heartburn of the reviewer questioning his wartime activities. The fact is that we don't really know what he was up to during the war, but we're pretty sure he didn't enlist. It promises to be a busy week, but maybe I'll have time to squeeze in a query to the Centre archivist.

Is the Powell source you are referring to the same on that is in the bibliography of the article? I got that one at my local library when I first started working on this article, but haven't consulted it recently. Acdixon ^{( talk • contribs • count)} 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes. Spacini ( talk) 23:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, Spacini! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the project and please let me know if you haev any comments, questions or suggestions. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic· t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Good Job on getting the Governor featured. I just noticed you left a discussion comment on the WikiProject Kentucky's talk page. Someone recently suggested to me that it might be beneficial for WPKentucky, Lousiville and the Coal Fields task force to be added to the supported projects list of WikiProject United States. I left a discussion about it on the projects talk page but there hasn't been any comment yet. Normally I take this as consent but since you left the comment I thought I would ask you for your take on the suggestion because I don't want to do anything that isn't wanted by the members of the project. I appreciate any input. -- Kumioko ( talk) 14:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Go for it! (Incidentally, I had nothing to do with the Gov Beckham article. It was largely the work of Acdixon.) Spacini ( talk) 01:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Spacini,

Subject: American Civil War Articles.

I've noticed you've done many articles concerning the "American Civil War" with a single reference of "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion" (1908) by Frederick Henry Dyer. It may be in the public domain since it was published in 1908, while my point being is that the body of text of each article seems to be confusing to the average reader. If I may list my points which seem to be wrong with these articles:

1. The articles are not properly formatted into proper sentences and not much detail.
2. They are unreferenced, unsourced and is only being supported by the above source. Which of course could be challenged.
3. The information, such as the sentences (places, battles, years, etc) seem to run into each other.
4. Regiments, Units, etc, appear from one place and date to another place and date somewhere else magically without the details of what happened in that period of time.
5. There could be more thing's wrong with them unfortunately, my brain is a little slow of a morning.

In my opinion, if you go back to the articles you've written and made the grammer, punctuation and sentences, references (and sources) appear you've taken a really long good effort to make it into a good article such as "B class" which at WikiProject Military History, we encourage Users to do good articles. Please don't be offended, would like you to be aware that it is a concern. Adamdaley ( talk) 23:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I was advised to let you join the discussion I started last night (for me last night) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history under the heading of "Disgusted". Adamdaley ( talk) 23:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your detailed response on this matter at Milhist. I have thrown the topic open to further ideas, as it seems now that this huge number of related articles has been brought to our attention, it seems as good a time as ever to discuss their development from stubs to higher quality articles, where possible. I am sure there is potential for many an A-class, GA and FA article in there, depending on the involvement some regiments had in the war, e.g. 20th Maine being just one example of a really involved Union regiment. If you wish to discuss any ideas or comment on the proposal I raised, please see WT:MILHIST#ACW regimental articles for details. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[ Chat •  RFF} 06:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

		Researcher's Barnstar
		For finding information that I'd been pulling my hair out over its unfindability, specifically the date of birth for Terry McCarthy (racing driver). Many thanks! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Spacini! Welcome to WikiProject Food and Drink! We are a group of editors who work together to better organize information in articles related to food and drink.

The goals of WikiProject Food and Drink:

• Consensus about the organization of food and drink related articles.
• Coordination of editing on food, drink, and restaurant related articles.
• Categorization of food, drink, and restaurant articles.
• Creation, expansion, and maintenance of food, drink, and restaurant articles.
• To help maintain the food portal.

What you can do right now:

• You might wish to add {{ User WP Food and drink}} to your userpage.
• If you haven't done so already, please consider adding your name to the list of participants.

Once again, welcome to the project!

-- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 03:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thanks for adding those pesky DOBs (i.e. Lynne Abraham, et al). I don't have a subscription to Ancestry.com and used up my free trial, so I don't have access to that info, I don't believe. Thanks again. Quis separabit? 16:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Spacini. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Just wondering why you tagged her DOB with a [citation needed] when there's already a citation for it in the infobox. Did you overlook the infobox? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 07:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• And why did you blank this without giving me an answer? I was just wondering if this was an honest mistake on your part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't take kindly to being called a "dumbass". Mystery solved? Spacini ( talk) 21:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • My apologies. [citation needed] is a major pet peeve of mine for various reasons, and I took out my frustration on an undeserving target. It's clear you just made it in error. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 22:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Apology appreciated and fully accepted. I believe it was a result of the "ANI discussion about dates of birth and BLP violations" thread above. I did, in fact, mistakenly use primary sources in the public record to add dates of birth to living persons' articles, in ignorance of the the WP:BLP policy about using public, primary sources. Their logic confounds me, but I promised to undo all of the "damage" I had done, and in doing so, I think Rachel Proctor's article was one that I accidentally tagged. And in all honesty, [citation needed] is a major pet peeve of mine as well, especially when a public, primary source is available. The biography folks' argument that a person with a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a public figure is paradoxical--at least it is to me--and therefore only if dates of birth are mentioned in a secondary source, should they be used for citation purposes. Isn't it logical that if an individual is well-known enough to have a Wikipedia article that a date of birth should be part of that person's article? Sorry, I digress. BE BOLD (but never mix logic and WP policies)! Spacini ( talk) 22:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I have started a discussion about making WikiProject Kansas a standalone project separate from WikiProject United States. Please join the discussion at the WikiProject Kansas talk page.

You are receiving this notice because you are in Category:WikiProject Kansas members.

Thanks, Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 01:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Spacini, I see that Proud Irish Aspie is adding hundreds of flags to biography infoboxes. I have reverted many but he (?) keeps on going. As I understand it, flags in infoboxes are valid to denote armies engaged in conflict, as in American Civil War, but not for individual combatants. Is that your take? Cheers. Span ( talk) 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Grrr! I thought it might just be the Lew Wallace article. I'll post a message about WP:INFOBOXFLAG on the user's talk page. Maybe that will get his attention. Thanks for the note. Spacini ( talk) 15:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Is it only combatant armies that can have infoflags or are there other exceptions? Ta. Span ( talk) 15:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

My understanding is that battle articles and regimental unit history articles may contain the flag icons, and that in the latter example, state flags are permissible when an image of the unit's flag is not extant. Spacini ( talk) 15:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

OK. Thanks. I see PIA is still roundly ignoring all warnings and continuing. He's added flags to well over 3000 articles. a Span ( talk) 21:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, a new essay is being drawn up at Wikipedia:Icons in military articles. You thoughts/input would be welcome. Span ( talk) 21:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi ..I noticed your revert... I understand the philosophy ...and somewhat understand the point of view.. but what about the issue whether Maulsby was the commander?...

Risk Engineer ( talk) 14:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I see what you're getting at. I studied the command structure of the regiment and Cook is an enigma. The regiment was clearly organized and placed under the command of Maulsby Sr. (using Sr. because his son also served as an officer in the regiment). Cook's service record reads:

Enlisted in Company A, Maryland 1st PHB Infantry Regiment on 15 Aug 1861. Promoted to full captain on 11 Nov 1861. Promoted to major on 6 Feb 1863. Promoted to full lt colonel on 23 Nov 1863. Promoted to full colonel on 24 Feb 1865. Mustered out on 18 Apr 1865. Transferred to F&S Maryland 13th Regiment on 13 Apr 1865. Mustered out 29 May 1865 at Baltimore.

This clearly begs the question of what he was doing from December 1864 to 18 Apr 1865, as the regiment had supposedly completed mustering out of all ranks by the end of December 1864.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm going to contact a friend who's an expert on Maryland Union regiments and see what she has on this.

Spacini ( talk) 15:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC) reply

At the William Dennes Mahan article, written by you, is a piece of fascinating testimony from the minutes of the presbytery. Can you say where you got these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.68.196.116 ( talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello, I posted some info at Talk:United States Department of Veterans Affairs emblems for headstones and markers regarding the five pointed star. I'd suggest filing a FOIA request with the VA about this. - Thanks, Hos hie 09:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I would appreciate your opinion on changes I propose to make in the last column of the article, List of American Civil War brevet generals (Union). When I completed the list in the article, except for the last column, I began to add information to the last column. After more or less finishing with the names which started with the letters A and B, I stopped the additions but for a very few types of entries for a few of the listed officers. Based on my experience with the List of American Civil War generals (Confederate), I was afraid that complaints would be made that the article was too large and should be split. I saved that from happening mainly by deleting quite a lot of the information of the type in the last column. For various reasons (cross references, among them), I would prefer that all the names be on the same page. The table gridlines add quite a few bytes but I do not know a way to organize the information without them. That was the only other way to cut the size of the article without eliminating information that I thought should be included.

I put some of the information in the table because of its value as a quick reference in writing or revising other articles as well as to provide identification of the officers. Also, I think it unlikely that all of these officers will have articles about them so this may be the only information Wikipedia will have about them. Also, there is much misunderstanding even among some people who are familiar with Civil War history about when most of these appointments really were made and what they mean. That is why, for example, I have added the appointments by President Lincoln as a note in the last column. All of the others were basically commendations.

I added some small amount of information in fewer categories to some of the other names and some may still need that information. Other editors have added some of the types of information I have for the names with the first two letters to some later names. What I propose to do is limit the types of information in that last column, which will result in deleting some information currently there, mostly for names under the letters A and B. The purpose would be to eliminate some clutter and large boxes for some of the generals. Also, it would be to keep complaints about article size from arising. I do note that the article has existed for some time now without such complaints. Most of the information that would be eliminated would be about political offices and other accomplishments which would be information which would make it more likely than articles would exist or be written about the persons. I would keep Medals of Honor, KIA, appointment by President Lincoln and a few other types of military facts.

I don't know how it looks to others but I think the final column either seems to be unfinished after the letter B or that the information for the names starting with the letters A and B are overdone. Actually, I would rather add the information down the line but I think that carries some risk of calls to pare it down.

You have worked on the article and are interested in American Civil War topics. So I ask your opinion on whether you see any problem with cutting back the information as noted. Of course, there are two other options: leave it the way it is so that no attention is drawn or judiciously add a little information to later entries. That is readily available to me since I own the main sources, Civil War High Commands and Brevet Brigadier Generals in Blue. The latter title seems to be almost a misnomer since brevet major generals are included; I suppose all or almost all of them were brevet brigadiers as well. Still leaving out the "brigadier" appears more accurate.

Thanks for considering this. Donner60 ( talk) 04:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hello! I would like to invite you to a Wikipedia editathon about WWI and Dissent on November 22 at the National World War I Museum in Kansas City. Join us for the U.S. branch of this international event as we write more social history from the era around WWI into Wikipedia! All editors are welcome, contributors to topics around WWI other than Dissent also encouraged! Food and drinks will be supplied by the WWI museum, Sadads ( talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Hey Spacini! I was looking through the event's list of attendees, and was a bit surprised your name wasn't on there because of your MILHIST wrok! Any chance of you attending? If not, totally understand; busy time of the year, Sadads ( talk) 17:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the follow up. Yeah, it's a really bad time for me and I'll probably be out of town. Please keep me posted about other events in this area. Spacini ( talk) 17:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC) reply

User talk:Acdixon#Suggestion. Acdixon ^{( talk · contribs)} 21:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I want to invite you to two upcoming Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism meetups in the Kansas City Area, as part of Women's History Month. The first event will be on March 7 in Lawrence from 10:00am to 5PM and the second on March 28, 2015 from 12:00 PM to 4:30 PM at the Kansas City Public Library. Join us either digitally or physically for these events! Of course, like other Wikipedia events, editors are more than welcome to edit about topics of their own interest, but our hope is to help close the gender gap on Wikipedia! Join us for both these welcoming events! Sadads ( talk) 01:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You are receiving this message because your username was listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Kansas/Invite list or attended the the November 2014 WWI Museum Editathon. If you don't want to hear more about meetups in the region, please remove yourself from the Kansas Invite list.

Just out of curiosity--and please understand that this is not a complaint, simply a curious question--why did you remove the flag icons from the James A. Mulligan article? Are they being removed from all similar articles, or was there a specific reason, here? Like I said: this is not by any means a complaint, simply a question. Thanks! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 02:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for asking. A little over a year ago (maybe longer, my memory isn't perfect), a Wikipedia editor caused a major stir by repeatedly adding countries' flags to infoboxes, especially those of Civil War officers. The outcome from the discussion that followed was WP:INFOBOXFLAG. (The discussion--for what it's worth--is still occasionally debated and questioned.) But for now, the style guideline that we agreed to adhere to in WP:INFOBOXFLAG is to keep the infoboxes from becoming cluttered with non-essential flags. Best wishes,

Spacini ( talk) 15:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Excellent! Thanks for the info. I've put some of those icons into infoboxes in the past, since I never knew about this development. Definitely nice to know for the future; gives me one less thing to worry about. Thanks again! - Ecjmartin ( talk) 17:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You're most welcome. I should have remembered to put in the WP:INFOBOXFLAG on my edit note. I'll have to get into the habit of doing that again. Spacini ( talk) 20:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice work removing flag icons from the infobox. JOJ Hutton 22:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I noticed you have been creating lots of articles on regiments that were involved in the American Civil War. I wanted to thank you for your work. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. I don't get much feedback on them, so it's nice to know they're useful. Spacini ( talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Spacini Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year! BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply The BEST gift I could wish for. (If only every present I received was a beer.) Cheers to you as well, Merry Christmas and happy new year! Spacini ( talk) 19:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		Awarded for the creation of hundreds of unit histories, the wikification of said units in countless articles and thereby a contribution to well accessible knowledge within the scope of the American Civil War task force of WikiProject Military history. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Just thought a little recognition couldn´t be wrong. You have my utmost respect for the dimensions, the quality and the pace of your contributions and my thanks for the field of study. You´re definitely one of my wikipedia heroes. Please continue with your good work. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you so very much! I enjoy it and will greatly miss the work when all the units are finally represented. Spacini ( talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I saw you removed mention of George Hanks from the 12th Connecticut article. While I don't have any citations showing that Hanks' actions in the regiment were notable to the regiment, it seems that a reader of the page on the regiment would be interested to learn about notable members of the regiment. Can you explain your edit a bit more? Is there a policy on this? To me, a list of notable members of a regiment makes similar sense to a list of notable people from a city, for instance. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 06:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much Smmurphy for your excellent question. The format for ACW regimental history articles was established many years ago by a group of editors in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force. The "Notable members" section was created for men of a regiment who went on to have significant contributions (i.e., famous/infamous) after the war or during the war (such as Medal of Honor recipients), and in a few instances, men who had attained "notable" status before the war are included in this section. I don't want you to think that I'm downplaying George Hanks' importance, he just doesn't fit the "notable" criteria that were established before even I joined the Civil War Task Force. Hope this makes sense. Please feel free to follow up with other questions! Spacini ( talk) 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I've looked through the ACW task force talk pages as best I could, and I can't find anything about this specifically. There are at least three places in the Mil Hist project talk that discuss the question: [1], [2], and [3] (you were involved in the last discussion). The first discussion was fairly exclusive, the second was very inclusive, and in the third you are the only person who really brings it up and you seem disposed to be fairly inclusive. Can you find the task force discussion, I'm curious to see it? What are the criteria (other than WP:N)? Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 05:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I've looked into Hanks record in the 12th Connecticut a bit more, and I think he did do notable things while still in the regiment. That said, I think members of a military regiment who later became notable enough to have a wikipedia page, especially a civil war regiment, belong in an article. At the policy level, I guess WP:Embed suggests prose is be preferred to lists in general. One relevant policy is probably WP:TRIVIALMENTION - while Hanks was notable and was a member of the 12th Connecticut (or J. Sypher Hale was a member of Battery B. 1st Ohio Light Artillery or even Mark Twain in the 2nd Division Missouri State Guard), a perfect argument for his mention in the regiments page would be a citation that his service in the regiment was, itself, notable (which may be possible for Hanks and Hale, but probably not for Twain). It is similar to the many discussions of notable residents of cities and towns all over Wikipedia. The other thing to look at is Featured Articles, 22nd Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry#Notable members shows people whose notability came outside of their service to the regiment, for instance. I am going to add Hanks back to the 12th Connecticut using that format. Smmurphy^{( Talk)} 13:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

OK. Spacini ( talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:ChasGHarker.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

If the formation was active in other years, it shouldn't say it was active just from 1861 to 1865 in the infobox. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The consequence of creating a bunch of poorly-done articles is that they eventually get deleted a seen here and here. I find it laughable someone gave you a barnstar for these "contributions." Chris Troutman ( talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not surprised that you find it "laughable". You appear to have a steady history of reviewing articles, pointing out their flaws, and then lobbing insults at the individuals who created them. Spacini ( talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Reviewing articles is something all Wikipedians should be doing. It would be wrong for me to find substandard articles and do nothing. I would be remiss if I didn't instruct those ignorant of the standard and admonish as needed. I expect a level of professionalism not often found on this wiki. Chris Troutman ( talk) 08:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Spacini,

I wish you the best this holiday season.

May the new year bring you nearer to your dreams.

BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 01:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC) reply

You or another contributor marked an upload of yours with an unknown author. Whilst the author may well be unknown, it's advised that uploader make a "reasonable effort" to determine if an author is genuinely unknown (as opposed to merely uncredited), and that as much information as possible is provided to determine if such efforts have been undertaken, and to assist other contributors that may be able to expand upon them.

It would be appreciated if you could add additional information to the image concerned, to assist with this. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 09:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC) reply

== BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 13:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zesch's Militia Battery Kansas Light Artillery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zesch's Militia Battery Kansas Light Artillery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Exemplo347 ( talk) 18:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Your removal of Establishment and Disestablishment categories from Civil War articles. Establishment/Disestablishment by location is appropriate. Your edits are bordering on vandalism. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message. The last I knew, the Establishment and Disestablishment categories were to be used only for businesses. If this has changed, I wasn't aware and what I've been doing when finding them was done in good faith. Can you please refer me to the usage guide for this category so that I can read the discussion about it and when it is and is not appropriate? Many thanks. Spacini ( talk) 18:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Read the description at Category:1865 establishments, a form of which is at every yearly establishment page. It says- This category is for organizations, places, companies, or other things founded or established in 1865. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

.I find your saying 'used only for businesses' very odd when in fact you created this [4]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for doing so much work to add Civil War units to the wiki. I am thinking of moving articles such as 2nd U.S. Light Artillery, Battery G to "2nd U.S. Artillery, Battery G" because "Light" was not part of the artillery regiments' names during the Civil War. Artillery regiments had both light and heavy batteries until de-regimentation in 1901. I notice there are about 15 of these articles. RobDuch ( talk) 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

That is perfectly acceptable to me and I also debated doing the same as I created them, so as to distinguish them from the heavy artillery regiments. Thanks for asking. Spacini ( talk) 17:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, I'm only talking about the five Regular Army regiments here; state units usually distinguished heavy and light regiments as you know. RobDuch ( talk) 17:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's what I understood you to mean. Spacini ( talk) 22:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi. One or more of your pages have DEFAULTSORT conflicts: ( search)

• User:Spacini/sandbox

Please either

• <nowiki> DEFAULTSORTs (if your page is a draft consisting of multiple subjects); or
• remove redundant DEFAULTSORTs (if your page is a draft with multiple DEFAULTSORTs); or
• remove all DEFAULTSORTs (otherwise)

in the affected pages. Thank you. – Ase1este ^t@lk _c0ntribs 03:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading free images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks, and please continue uploading! --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've been going over a few of your Civil War military unit articles, notably 1st Maine Battery and 34th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. I would like to notify you about the fact that the content of these articles are simply incoherent and do not present any valuable information to the average reader. Much of the rich history of the units seem to be lost in the words that comprise the Detailed Service section. To see articles written about men who died for your country in such a lazy and inconsiderate fashion is, with all due respect, insulting. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that you were already a highly experienced Wikipedia editor upon these articles' creations. I'm not sure whether you have created any more articles in this style, but if you have, I highly urge you to redo them. As I am not an expert in military units of the Civil War and finding every one of these types of articles is quite tedious, I believe this job is best in the hands of you the creator. I have raised this topic in the discussion page of the Military History Wikiproject, and other users seem to agree that such articles are in dire need of editing (see below). From WikiProject Military history talk page:

Question Concerning Military Unit Articles

I have been reviewing certain military articles recently (1st Florida Cavalry Regiment (Union), 1st Maine Battery, 34th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry) and have found the pages absolutely unreadable. The service detail is so densely and monotonously packed together such that many of the rich and detailed history of the units have been lost in a mountain of words. However, after editing the 1st Florida Cavalry Regiment page, I discovered that many of these incomprehensible articles were written in the same style. Are minor military unit articles all supposed to be written in this style or is this is a major problem that I should continue correcting? Thanks GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

They look like info dumps from their unit diary. Possibly all the original author(s) had access to. Somewhere to start from, at least. (Hohum @) 20:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC) I assume what you´re referring to are sections that aren´t written at all but directly copied public domain material from respective entries in Dyer's Compendium (like e.g. the 1st Florida Cavalry Regiment (Union) over here). A compact way for lots of information without going into details per se as the compendium needed. I´m sure that nobody has any objections if you want to do the work and turn that into actual prose or expand any articles accordingly. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, articles that are copied and pasted from Dyer's Compendium like most of the Union regimental articles with service details should definitely be rewritten to both make the prose readable (coherent sentences) and to add information from recently published secondary sources. Kges1901 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. GeneralPoxter ( talk) 02:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concerns and assure you that the articles you question were not created in any way to discredit, be inconsiderate of, nor insult the achievements and sacrifices of the men who died for my country. They were also not created in a deliberately lazy fashion. With literally several thousand regiments and artillery batteries which fought in the American Civil War, it was a very early attempt by myself and other editors in the Civil War project to get start pages or even stub pages created. They were noted as such on the talk pages, linking back to the Military History WikiProject where other editors could see they had been created and upgrade them if they chose to do so.[I don't think the "start" tag was around yet and I'm certain that the "No footnotes|date=December 2012" tag had been created].

Other editors' unit histories were written with smaller amounts of information, whereas still other unit histories were given a great deal of attention from the moment they were created--even some with footnotes, long before they were expected. The unit articles I created were simply meant to be capsule histories, mimicking the form of (and in nearly all examples) using text directly from Dyer's Compendium as GELongstreet notes. I did add "References", which are now cited usually as "Further Reading" sections in the hope that they would inspire additional work. And since the time that the unit history project was started, some have had dramatic improvements by one or many editors, whereas others have only had minor improvements. The article for the 107th Ohio Infantry is an example where one editor simply took the "Service" and "Detailed Service" sections and made them more readable. To the best of my recollection, I never once protested or reverted anything in the articles I created as long as it was improving them and following established style guidelines.

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over 13 years and back in the earlier days of this massive collection of information, "BE BOLD" really meant something. It meant "Start!", "Create!", "Try!", etc.; I had hoped that's what my and others' capsule histories were doing and that has apparently greatly displeased you. For that I am sorry, and I'm also sincerely sorry that you're not interested in upgrading the articles. Time is a luxury I no longer have and thus I haven't created one article in any subject area for a little over two years.

Finally, I really do hope that other editors will take the capsule histories, BE BOLD, and make them more interesting to read. Spacini ( talk) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed you added an entry at Newton County Courthouse for Kansas. Since there is no Newton County, and your sandbox list has Newton at the Harvey entry, I am assuming you meant Harvey County? I'm removing it from the courthouse disambiguation page, but I just want to be 100% sure that's what the issue is. Thanks for working on that list. kennethaw88 • talk 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for catching this and fixing it! It was obviously eye fatigue. Spacini ( talk) 00:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Also, how are you able to see my Sandbox? In all the years I've been a Wikipedia editor, I had no idea that could be a viewable public space. Spacini ( talk) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

While trying to investigate Newton County stuff, I went to Special:WhatLinksHere/Newton County Courthouse (Kansas), where your sandbox showed up. kennethaw88 • talk 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you. 14+ years of editing and I'm still learning new things. I suppose I should clean up my Sandbox. Spacini ( talk) 17:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC) reply

As far as I'm aware, including the state as a parenthetical disambiguation in county courthouse articles is only necessary if there are multiple counties with that name; otherwise, "X County Courthouse" without any disambiguation is preferred. So Doniphan County Courthouse doesn't actually need the state name in the title. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 02:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 14th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Kansas Militia Infantry Regiment until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm just not sure that the militia units that didn't see combat are notable. I've been creating a bunch of Missouri Confederate unit articles, and I've been intentionally avoiding created articles for the more ephemeral Missouri State Guard units. I'd say the regular army units above company size are notable, but I'm not sure on some of the militia ones. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21#Category:Wikipedians who know where their towel is. It is proposed to delete this category. Spinning Spark 16:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Defunct museums in Kentucky, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories. (See section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  16:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Moved from User talk:Tom.Reding § Category deletion

Good evening. I'm curious why you keep deleting Category:Defunct museums in Kentucky from the James A. Ramage Civil War Museum article. It is a valid category, as other states also have the same category for defunct museums. Please see Category:Defunct museums in Alabama, which is a subcategory of Category:Defunct museums in the United States. I look forward to your explanation. Many thanks, Spacini ( talk) 01:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Rationale: WP:OVERCAT with Category:Museums disestablished in 2021 & it doesn't follow the existing naming convention.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  10:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Lourdes: either I was mistaken or the original category ( Defunct museums in Kentucky) did not appear to be properly categorized to look legitimate. Could you please desalt? Thanks.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

If I remove Category:Museums disestablished in 2021 and replace it with Category:Defunct museums in Kentucky, would that be satisfactory? I've never been fond of the the establishment/disestablishment categories as I think they've been overly--and in many cases--improperly used. Spacini ( talk) 16:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for uploading File:WilliamFCloud.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 13:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Corrected information about the creator of the content and that it is a public domain image. Spacini ( talk) 18:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC) reply

There is still no verifiable source. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC) reply

What do you want me to do? Take a picture of me holding the original? Delete it. I don't care. Your pedantic argument is what makes editing Wikipedia so miserable sometimes. Spacini ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of wineries in Kansas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Kansas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Skyerise ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi. I see you’re an experienced Wikipedia editor who is a member of Kentucky WikiProjects. I’ve made proposals to update the article about Tamara Gustavson, a prominent Kentucky resident. These have been partially reviewed by an independent editor, but the reviewing editor didn’t have time to look at all of them. Talk:Tamara Gustavson#Requested Edit Review. I have a conflict of interest as a friend of Gustavson. Would you possibly have time to look at these? Thank you very much. Wiki64gus ( talk) 22:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MDT, Tuesday evening, August 8, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in articles, history, geography, maps, or photographs of the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. We may try to organize one or more Wiknics. Guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from the Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, November 14, 2023, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikimedia US Mountain West

Wikimedians of the U.S. Mountain West will hold an online meeting from 8:00 to 9:00 PM MST, Tuesday evening, February 13, 2024, at meet.google.com/kfu-topq-zkd. Anyone interested in the Mountain West or the future direction of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia movement is encouraged to attend. All guests are welcome. Please see our meeting page for details.

If you don't wish to receive these invitations any more, please remove your username from our Wikipedia:Meetup/US Mountain West/Invitation list. Thanks.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC) reply