Billmckern (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job on all the pictures for New York congressional district members. Keep up the good work! Jamo58 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Truly impressed with all the pictures you are uploading! Keep it up!!!! Jamo58 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be all right with you if I nominated your article of Edward H. Ripley at Did you know? — Maile (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, feel free.

Billmckern (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Talk:List of United States congressional districts related to style of new district-level maps for the post-2013 United States congressional districts. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. --7partparadigm ^talk 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Did you check the Page view stats for this being on today's front page? Impressive. — Maile (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those stats are impressive. I noticed that several people jumped in and made edits to the Edward H. Ripley page, too -- some of which were quickly reversed.

Billmckern (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, alien abductions and other fun stuff. They really ought to protect these articles while they're on the main page. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on expanding Kenneth J. Gray. Great job! Connormah (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Connormah (talk) -- Thanks very much. I keep meaning to go back and add details about Gray's family, but I haven't gotten to that yet. I'll try to follow up soon.

Billmckern (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just read the Find-A-Grave stuff, and I have no reason to doubt his brevet. But the article claim is that the 5th Cav produced 12 generals, and Royall doesn't belong on that list. He never operated as a general and never had a general's billet. He got a brevet just as he was retiring, perhaps after he retired. I'd have to assert that such a claim (of 12 generals) is original research and is not supported by reliable secondary sources. Ordinarily I'd say that such a claim was simple calculation, but if an editor must jump through hoops to claim the fellow (a noble and fearsome fellow, I'll grant) belonged in that rarefied list of generals, I'd say we're pushing it. I want the name removed. It doesn't belong. The subject does deserve his own pagespace, however. I put the redlink on the ACW task force's to do list. Do appreciate your speedy reply. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, find-a-grave doesn't meet the test for reliable sources. It's basically a crowdsourced forum, but very useful. The text from the find-a-grave entry reads like army register, so there's probably a better place to source this fact. The gravestone itself certainly may be accurate (although as a graveyard walker myself, I've seen embelishments on military tombstones--at West Point, no less). BusterD (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BusterD (talk) -- The line in the article doesn't say "operated as a general and had a general's billet." It says "produced 12 generals." In that context, having William B. Royall on the list is accurate.

I would think that a military rank chiseled into a gravestone at Arlington National Cemetery, and a photo of that gravestone are about as good as it gets in terms of definitive proof, whether the photo appears on Find A Grave or elsewhere. There are in fact additional references. This edition of the Army-Navy Journal refers to Royall as "General." This edition of the Monroeville Breeze (Monroeville, Indiana) contains a death notice that explicitly states "Brevet Brigadier General." This edition of the Daily Democrat from Huntington, Indiana also contains a death notice and refers to "Brevet Brigadier General." Colonel Richard Irving Dodge: The Life and Times of a Career Army Officer by Wayne R. Kime also indicates that Royall received the rank of Brevet Brigadier General.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether Royall is included in the article on the 5th Cav. But you deleted it because it lacked a reference. I was just trying to help by providing a reference. There are in fact plenty of references on this point, as I've indicated here.

Billmckern (talk) 13:50, 13 April 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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Billmckern - The John Durkin article is really shaping up nicely from where it was several months ago. Thank you for your recent work improving it.
Regards --- Professor JR (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Billmckern for all your editing and great work on the Henry Wilson bio article. I have been working on Grant's first Vice President Schuyler Colfax's bio article. If you are interested you are welcome to make the Colfax bio article better too. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: -- Thanks for the kind words. Let me see what I can do on the Colfax page. I still have a couple of ideas for the Wilson page, too -- there were Harper's or Leslie's pictures of him in a bed in the Vice President's office after his final stroke, as well as pictures of his lying in state in Washington and Boston. If I can find good copies I'll add them -- I think they'd be a nice finishing touch.

Billmckern (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Billmckern. Yes. I do too. I think Wilson deserves a Good Article nomination also. As a Vice President and Senator he seemed like a good guy, except for the Crédit Mobilier scandal fiasco...I wander if Grant would have had a better second term if Wilson was healthy...Thanks for looking into the Schuyler Colfax article. He is intersting person too. Unlike Wilson Colfax was always overshadowed by Crédit Mobilier and another scandal. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits Billmckern look great on the Schuyler Colfax article. Much appreciated Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cmguy777: -- Thanks. I'll try to double back and do some more work on the Colfax page when I have time.

Billmckern (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good. I edited more on his Historical reputation section. I think more information could be edited there. Thanks Billmckern. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Billmckern, I see you're in the process of some edits to Colleen Bell—and I like what you've done in the first one!

I'm not sure if you've seen this, but I've been working for a few months to propose improvements to the article, section-by-section. Most recently, I'd offered a new version of what was previously called Political career, and had some interest from other editors, but they've been busy on other projects. You can find the open request on the Talk page; I've even even prepared a full draft of the article in my user space. If you like what you see, would you consider using as much as you like from it?

As you will also see on the article's Talk page, it's important to note: I have a financial conflict of interest here: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker. I will not make any direct edits myself, so I'm looking for others' input and assistance in making the changes if they seem reasonable. Do you mind taking a look? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WWB Too: -- I had seen your note on the Politics talk page, which is what caused me to look at the page for Colleen Bell. I'll try this weekend to look over what you wrote, check current events news, etc. and see what else I can find to improve this article.

Billmckern (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad you saw my post! To briefly bring you up to speed: I've already had editors help update the Early life and education and Producing career sections, as well as the photo in the infobox. The next steps for me were to see about having what was called the Political career section rewritten and creating an Ambassadorship section, since the current article only dealt with the nomination process and nothing about her time on the job. Then Personal life (although it would be very minor) and finally the intro. Let me know if you have any questions. Feedback is welcome. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Billmckern. I wanted to touch base with you to see if you had any questions on my draft updating Colleen Bell. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I hate to feel like I'm being a pest, but I'm curious if you still plan to return to the Colleen Bell article soon? Your recent edits were quite helpful, and I'd love to see this article get better still! Let me know if there is anything I can do, and thanks again for your help thus far. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WWB Too: -- Today or tomorrow, I think. Celebrated holidays with family. Have some free time today and I think I'll have some tomorrow.

Billmckern (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the reply, and hope you're having a nice holiday break! Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks so much for all you've done with the Colleen Bell article! It looks great. I especially like the tweaks you made. I did notice just one tiny error: the first sentence of the fifth paragraph in the Ambassadorship section is missing a verb: Perhaps we can add the word "unfolded" so it reads: "As the European migrant crisis in 2015 unfolded, with people from Syria fleeing that country's Syrian Civil War...". What do you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think I had used "unfolded" as I was writing. I must have deleted it accidentally while eliminating duplicate words, extra spaces, and so on.

Billmckern (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bill, I added the "vague" tag to the section on Dachau concentration camp#Killing of camp guards, with the explanatory comment "Non-U.S. civilians are not subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, and crimes committed by civilians are not covered under the Geneva Conventions". Your clarification " Many guards were also killed by the liberated prisoners and not U.S. soldiers, which would have made prosecuting soldiers more complex. " doesn't really address the concern I raised. The concentration camp inmates were not covered by the same military codes and laws that the Allied soldiers were under, so Patton's actions could in no way have been justified by the inmates killing of the guards. Perhaps "vague" was not the best tag to use, because the issue was whether the internees' actions made prosecution of the soldiers actions "more complex". I don't think it really did. I'd appreciate your view on this. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE: -- It would have been harder to prosecute the soldiers if the evidence wasn't clear that they had committed the killings. If there were courts-martial, and the soldiers blamed the prisoners, but the prisoners blamed the soldiers, how could a jury find the soldiers guilty? That's the complexity of the issue. If that's not clear in the article, I can try to make it more so.

Billmckern (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern, Thanks for you reply. I wasn’t aware that there was confusion as to who was being held responsible for the killing of the guards, and hadn’t heard that rationale before. The specifics of the court-martial proceedings for the members of the 45nd ID that Patton dismissed were pretty well documented as you probably know, including photos of the SS soldiers being lined up for a firing squad by the U.S. soldiers. If you haven’t seen it, there was a good article in the Boston Globe reporting on the declassified military report from 2001 that is archived here: [1]. Patton’s rationale for summarily dismissing the court-martial charges and destroying some of the records is not clearly explained in any record I’ve seen. I’m just wondering if it should be included in this article (the comment about making the decision to prosecute the U.S. soldiers based on some guards being killed by internees being more complex) making some equivalent rationalization between the soldiers’ actions covered under military law, and the internees acting individually out of revenge and not covered by the same codes. Eisenhower and several modern historians quoted in the Boston Globe article do consider the actions of the soldiers to have been a breach of international law, regardless of the actions of any of the camp internees. Further, the responsibility of the internees for the deaths isn’t mentioned in the Wikipedia article Dachau liberation reprisals and I think the 2 sections should comport with each other. Maybe they should just be merged? Personally, I think the statement about the internees making the decision more complex should be deleted, since the argument that the soldiers could blame the internees was never actually made. I appreciate your considering this. Thank again. N0TABENE (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE: -- I don't know if this line needs to be included at all. I was just trying to make it more precise so as to remove the "vague" tag.

Another way to approach this decision not to prosecute US soldiers is that there were widely varying accounts from the available witnesses -- some said the US soldiers killed the guards without provocation. Some said the prisoners did it without provocation. Some said the guards had been detained and tried to run away or fight their way out, so the US soldiers had no choice but to open fire. The number of guards killed also varies widely from version to version -- anywhere from 30 to almost 400. To me, these widely varying accounts also means that attempting to prosecute soldiers for killing guards would have been "complex" to day the least -- if there's no agreement on the basic facts of what happened, how effectively can you prosecute someone for having done it?

The most readily available reference I found to explain that idea is Access to History for the IB Diploma: The Second World War and the Americas, 1933-45. If we wanted to go down this road, I suspect I could find additional references.

Billmckern (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, Thanks again. I have some concerns about the secondary reference you mention. If you could do me a favor and review the original transcript of the testimony of the soldiers involved in the killings https://teaching.cs.uml.edu/~heines/secretwar/GlobeSecretHistory/index5_transcript.shtml. It’s pretty clear the charge that the surrendered SS guards were escaping was false based on the testimony of U.S. soldiers there. It’s difficult and long reading. I just don’t see any reason to confuse the charges against the soldiers with the possible arguments that the internees may have been involved. You check out the references I mentioned and I’ll look at yours, and we’ll talk more. Have a nice weekend. N0TABENE (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE: -- It really doesn't matter to me. I was just trying to provide a detailed enough explanation to remove the "vague" tag.

There are lots of conflicting accounts of what happened, and I think the lack of clarity and agreement about what transpired would have made prosecution at courts-martial difficult, if not impossible.

Felix Sparks from the 157th Infantry Regiment, 45th Infantry Division claimed that he saw perhaps as many as 50 guards killed by US soldiers, and that one of the US soldiers claimed that the guards had to be killed because they had tried to flee after being detained. Howard Buechner, the 157th Regiment's medical officer, claimed that as many as 350 guards were killed by US soldiers at an incident following the one Sparks described. I also found written accounts which claim that US soldiers allowed liberated prisoners to use the soldiers' pistols to kill guards, and accounts of liberated prisoners killing guards by beating them with shovels and other tools. There's also the long running dispute I've described in a few Wikipedia article between the adherents of Felix Sparks and those of Henning Linden over who was the "true" liberator of Dachau -- a controversy that has further colored peoples' judgments and comments about the events surrounding the camp's liberation.

Because the accounts of what transpired after the Dachau liberation vary widely, and range from the plausible to the fantastic to the blatantly self-serving, I think it's pretty easy to see why prosecutions at courts-martial would have been "complex" -- the original comment I tried to clarify. If I'm on track, I can write a passage to that effect for the article. But maybe I'm wrong. If you believe I'm off track and have a better way to explain in the article the investigation and decision not to prosecute, then please do.

Billmckern (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern:, Now I see the point you were trying to make, but the way the original comment read looked what would have made the prosecution of the soldiers complex was the killings of guards by the internees, not the conflicting accounts by the soldiers themselves. The internees weren’t responsible for the killings by the soldiers, so maybe not having the statement I tagged immediately follow the statement about the internees would clarify it. I’m trying to look the article from the perspective of someone reading this for the first time and not having an in depth knowledge as you and I, and it would seem the way it was written mitigated the soldiers actions by the actions of the internees. That was my point. I think if you provided more explanation of the reason for the complexity of the prosecution it would be more helpful to readers. If you’d prefer me to try to draft something I’d be happy to help, or you can take a stab at it. I think we’re on the same page.

I’m aware of the disputes regarding credit for the liberation. I redrafted the section on the liberation of the subcamps a few months ago, and listed every Division recognized by the U.S Holocaust Museum as a liberating unit. N0TABENE (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE: -- Why don't you go ahead with drafting the change? I can look it over and let you know if I have any suggestions.

Billmckern (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern:, I’ve spent a fair amount of time looking back over the original source documents, including the 7th army report and the eyewitness reports. A few unreferenced secondary sources mention the inmate killings, but never in relation to those of the soldiers. There was one reference to the killing of the guards as providing a “Tu quoque” defense at Nuremberg (“you too” – we both committed war crimes), but this was on what looked like a revisionist forum. When most sources talk about the killings they discuss the soldiers’ culpability as separate from the internees’ actions. So that this section agrees with the Dachau liberation reprisals main article, I propose just omitting the last part of the sentence entirely, so it would read: “Many guards were also killed by the liberated prisoners.” with no mention of providing a defense for the soldiers’ actions. Let me know if you're amenable. N0TABENE (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE: -- Concur. All I was trying to do was provide enough detail to remove the "vague" tag. If you re-write the passage and provide the references along the lines you suggest, I think that will be fine. I'm willing to read what you write and let you know if I have any suggestions by way of improvement, but based on our discussion here, I'm pretty sure what you come up with will be accurate and contain enough details that the readers won't find it vague. That should satisfy the original intent we both had at the start of this process.

Billmckern (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@N0TABENE: -- I just read your edits. I think you nailed it -- I have nothing to suggest by way of addition, deletion or correction.

Billmckern (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billmckern Thanks. It's been a pleasure reaching a consensus with you. Have a wonderful Christmas and New Year. N0TABENE (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he could have held up Senate-passed measures, but that would make sense only if they were sponsored by Edward Kennedy. Other Senate-passed measures, unrelated to Kennedy, presumably would not be affected, because if anyone was to "blame," it would be Massachusetts, and not the entire Senate. The article as written seems to make an improbable and implausible assertion which it then refutes. If there is no evidence that McCormack engaged in such conduct, then why include it at all?John Paul Parks (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Paul Parks: -- I've got some time today. I'll look at the references and see if I can find anything that provides enough detail to make the meaning clear. If not, then I agree this sentence is probably not helpful.

Billmckern (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John Paul Parks: -- I agree with you. I found nothing in newspaper articles from 1962 and 1963 to indicate that Speaker McCormack might or actually did do anything to impede Ted Kennedy's efforts as a Senator. In fact, I found articles from the time of the primary (September 19, 1962) until the general election in November in which both Edward and John McCormack said they endorsed Kennedy and asked their supporters to vote for him. I think you're right that the passage suggesting the possibility of foot dragging as the result of the 1962 primary should be removed from the John McCormack article.

The article on Speaker McCormack looks like it needs some work. Maybe we can each contribute to that if you have time.

Billmckern (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I will review the article and see if I have any suggestions.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion page. Luke (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke: -- Noted. I know the Second Seminole War generally, but not specifically; among other things, I largely authored the Wikipedia page on Benjamin Kendrick Pierce. Let me take some time to delve into the details and see if I can come up with some draft language to share with you -- something that we can agree is accurate and concise. In the meantime, if anyone else is interested, this will give him/her/them an opportunity to weigh in.

Billmckern (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Luke (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke: -- I've done some research and I think I can come up with citations to verify this statement for the result of the Second Seminole War: Nominal end to conflict; no peace treaty; approximately 4,000 Seminoles forcibly transported to Indian Territory; approximately 500 Seminoles remained in Everglades; unresolved conflict led to Third Seminole War in 1855.

Please let me know what you think.

Billmckern (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern:It doesn't sound unreasonable. I have found a number of citations that claims that only 300 Seminoles were left. But what of the following statement from the article itself: "By the end of 1843 3,824 Indians (including 800 Black Seminoles) had been shipped from Florida to what became the Indian Territory. They were initially settled on the Creek Reservation, which created tensions. The next year, the Florida people numbered 3,136." ^[1] Luke (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke: -- That seems like a solid reference. Maybe the difference between 3,136 and 300 or 500 is the difference between the number that could be counted and the number that hid deep enough in the Everglades to avoid detection. How about updating the next to last clause in my proposed change to read "approximately 3,100 Seminoles remained in Florida..."?

Billmckern (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern: Excellent! Go ahead and make the change. Luke (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke: -- Sorry to backtrack, but I found some references I think shed a different light. These seem to indicate that 3,136 was the number of Seminoles in Indian Territory in 1844, while the number of Seminoles in Florida was in the 300 to 400 range. What do you think?

Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors, Issue 73

Oklahoma Heritage

Removal Aftershock: The Seminoles' Struggles to Survive in the West, 1836-1866

The Formation of the State of Oklahoma (1803-1906)

Elements of Government: With History and Government of Oklahoma

@Billmckern: I have seen three hundred too, so I won't argue about that number. Luke (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke: -- I rewrote the relevant passage to indicate approximately 4,000 in Indian Territory and about 350 remaining in Florida. I included several references, including some of the ones I listed here on my talk page. I think we've managed to make the "results" portion of the infobox about as accurate as we can -- certainly the point that it was hardly a US victory is now obvious.

Please let me know if you think we need to do anything by way of improvement to this page.

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Billmckern: Modern literature increasingly refers to this war as an act of ethnic cleansing, but I am not sure I care for making the effort of writing a full section about it. Luke (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions to List of Governors of Montana. Could you please go back and add citations to your information? It would really help the future development of the list. Thanks again!--KingJeff1970 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KingJeff1970: -- Sure thing. I left off with adding photos and some data about who left the territorial governor's office, when, and why. I intend to loop back and add citations when I'm able.

Billmckern (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I recently noticed that you changed the date upon which William M. Evarts left the Senate in 1891 from March 4th to March 3rd. I am not attempting to criticize your edit. However, biographies about politicians of this time are inconsistent as to whether or not they give March 4th or March 3rd as the date upon which one's term in office concluded, while biographies of Presidents give March 4th for both the start and end date. However, since the ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933, all articles are consistent in that they give January 3rd as the start and end date for all congressmen. Can you please explain your reasoning to me, so that I may perhaps have a better idea? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: -- Presidential and vice presidential terms ended on March 4, because there was a Constitutional requirement to take an oath at noon on March 4. There was no such requirement for Senators and Representatives. Their terms ended on March 3. On occasion, Congress continued to meet into March 4 as it attempted to conclude business before adjourning. Eventually they adopted two fictions in order to allow themselves to keep working. The first was the creation of the "legislative day" of March 3, which the Speaker and Senate President determined ended at noon on March 4. The second was that if they couldn't be done by noon on March 4 -- still the March 3 legislative day -- they'd stop the clocks in the House and Senate chambers and pretend that noon at March 4 had not yet arrived, so that they could still claim they were working on March 3.

I was involved in an extensive discussion of this topic on a discussion page last year. The consensus was to use March 3 as the end date for Congressional terms, and March 4 for president, vice president and cabinet members.

I hope these details are useful. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Billmckern (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assisting me in attempting to answer this question. It does not appear to me as though consensus was established in that discussion, and perhaps it is best not to change dates on certain articles and simply leave them as they are. But I thank you for providing me with more knowledge regarding the debate. It is interesting to know that I am not the only one confused. Display name 99 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: -- Respectfully, I completely disagree. This question was debated by participants over the course of several months. The final few postings make clear that consensus was achieved. March 3 was agreed upon by the discussion thread participants as the end date for Congressional terms from 1933 and before, and March 4 as the end date of terms for president, vice president and cabinet members. This topic was debated several times before last year, and those of us who worked on it last year went through a lot of research and writing in an effort to obtain a consensus. With respect, I think the participants came to a resolution, and there's no need to do something different than what was agreed to, and no need to re-open this discussion.

Billmckern (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"ARNG FABs will be aligned with ARNG Divisions for training affiliation and will be capable of serving as a DIVARTY to support ARNG Divisions during deployment and provide reinforcing and counterfire capability to a Corps or Joint Task Force (JTF). Division Artillery: A Force Multiplier

Current NG Divisions and aligned FABs Divisions/FABs 28th ID/????? ???????/169FAB 29th ID/142FAB 34th ID/115FAB 35th ID/130FAB 36th ID/45FAB 38th ID/138FAB 40th ID/65FAB 42nd ID/197FAB

If all NG Divisions are getting a FAB and all NG FABs are being aligned to a division. Tell me which NG Division the 169th FAB is being aligned with if its not the 28th and which NG FAB the 28th ID is receiving then? Shrike6 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)shrike6[reply]

@Shrike6: -- The source you cited doesn't mention the 28th Infantry Division. It doesn't mention the 169th Field Artillery Brigade. I've done some searching, and I can't find a reference. Respectfully, I'm not saying you're wrong; I am saying that I think if you're going to make this change to the 28th ID page, you ought to include a reference that verifies it.

Billmckern (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

?

It mentions NG Divisions and FABs. Did both get removed from the guard? I was unaware. When did they get removed from the guard? Do you have a source to cite on that? Shrike6 (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)shrike6[reply]

@Shrike6: -- Now I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a simple issue -- you want to include on the 28th ID page a statement that says the 169th Field Artillery Brigade is part of that division. If this statement is true, you should include a reference to verify it. I'm saying that I have searched myself for such a reference and I can't find one. Process of elimination isn't the same as a reference. If it's a true statement, please cite a source to verify it.

Billmckern (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the source and explained the reasoning. I can't help it if you want to be on a power trip. As far as my last comment, the source I cited mentioned them indirectly, the only way it doesn't include them is if both units are no longer in the guard. Sorry humor and logic are lost on you. I'm done, you win. Congrats. Shrike6 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)shrike6[reply]

@Shrike6: -- I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't see it as a "power trip" on my part. I see it as trying to comply with Wikipedia's usual standard, which is to cite sources for facts contained in articles.

I didn't just revert your edit -- I tried to find a source myself. I can't find a single news article, magazine article, blog post, military press release, or photo caption to verify the item you want to add. If what you want to include is true, doesn't it make sense that someone somewhere would have written it down? or talked about it on camera, or mentioned it on the radio?

Billmckern (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill,

Glad to see you on Wikipedia. I will not revert your reversion but you need to know it is wrong. Hylan was never a motorman. It is popularly thought he had been a motorman because the issue of his service with the BRT was brought up at the time of the Malbone Street Wreck, since he was a chief and powerful critic of the BRT. And he was Mayor. The papers picked up that he had worked for Brooklyn Union [a BRT predecessor and lessor] and that he had been fired, and they reported that he was a motorman, and who would bother to delve into that? Motorman? Engineering? He operated a train.

You have inadvertently revealed an essential weakness of Wikipedia. It could be expressed as "if I have numerous sources that say x then x must be accurate." So once an error has been established it is copied and copied and copied. Voila! Numerous sources. It is the natural outgrowth of the reference to secondary, tertiary and even lower sources.

I'm not trying to criticize your efforts or make you feel bad, but I would be happy if you could understand that the article on John Hylan creates yet another inaccurate source. Cordially, Cecropia (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cecropia: -- It makes no difference to me one way or the other. If you're that sure that you're right, and that all these other sources are wrong, then by all means, feel free to make your correction. I've seen mistakes get unintentionally repeated in other situations, too -- a birth date or burial location or college attended -- something along those lines.

If you make the change, perhaps you should include references and/or an explanatory note that explains that so many sources are unintentionally incorrect and rely on each other.

Billmckern (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the prefix rank of Robert Brooks Brown on the US Army Pacific article. Americasroof (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billmckern, I was wondering if you could be so kind as to watchlist Greg Gianforte and Steve Bullock (Montana politician). As you know from the kerfuffle over the John Walsh article, I'm probably a little too close to this topic to do substantive edits on these two pages, but per The Signpost's note of the Gianforte campaign possibly scrubbing his WP article as revealed here, I think these two pages will need some routine watchlisting. Montanabw^(talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: -- Done. I made minor edits to both pages and added them to my watchlist.

Billmckern (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for adding Daniel V. Sullivan's date of birth! How did you find it? (I'd like to add the citation.) Ira Leviton (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ira Leviton: -- WWII draft registration card via Ancestry.com. In addition to DOB, it lists his occupation, so I know it's the same guy. I'll add the reference a little later this morning.

Billmckern (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Billmckern. I have been working on and improving the biographical article Elihu B. Washburne a contemporary of Schuyler Colfax and fellow U.S. Congressman. You are welcome to help improve the article. You have done great work on the Henry Wilson and the Colfax articles. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits Billmckern and for improving the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Regarding your edit on Craig R. McKinley. First, this isn't an article on Blum. Second, it does seem unusual to have simply an H as a first name. Do you have source for it? Third, how does he pronounce it? Since there's no period, it isn't an abbreviation. Since it's not an abbreviation, it's not pronounced "aitch". So how is it to be pronounced? Just like "hhh..." (the sound of an act of exhalation)? Fourth, why is the article on him at "H. Steven Blum"? If you're correct, then it should be at "H Steven Blum", shouldn't it?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HandsomeFella: -- It's not an article on Blum, but it IS Blum's name. It seems to me that it ought to be correct. His first initial is pronounced like the letter H. I have no idea why he doesn't use the period -- I just know he doesn't. I agree that the Wikipedia article for Blum should be renamed to delete the period. Here are my sources: H Steven Blum at Sitirck and Company; H Steven Blum at The Spectrum Group; H Steven Blum at the Strategic Studies Institute; H Steven Blum at the National Guard Bureau; Lieutenant General H Steven Blum Extended as Chief, National Guard Bureau, 2007 news article; H Steven Blum citation for Defense Distinguished Service Medal at Military Times Hall of Valor; H Steven Blum signature page, National Guard Regulation 25-1; and H Steven Blum signature on endorsement page, Richard Douglas for U.S. Senate.

Billmckern (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. One source may be wrong, being sloppy with periods or something, but not that many. I still find it crazy, I can't imagine his parents gave him a name of just "H", I think he's only being silly, or doesn't like the first name – Harold, or Henry, or whatever. (Horatio maybe! If that's really the case, I understand him, no problems.)

Anyway, since that's how he apparently wants it to be spelled, I suggest we move the page, so we can get rid of all the crazy piping. You could then add those sources to his talkpage, and possibly give it a mention in the article, a footnote or something (not WP:UNDUE). Do you agree?

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HandsomeFella: -- I agree. Do you want to rename the Blum article to remove the period, and then make the other edits, or do you want me to do it?

I'm in the National Guard. I've heard that Blum has a first name he doesn't like, but I don't know for sure. If so, I haven't yet figured out what it is. I checked Ancestry.com, Genealogy bank.com, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, and came up dry on all of them.

Billmckern (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move now. There was a redirect in the way, so I couldn't move it myself. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source that Fenton didn't run for re-election? I don't doubt you… you're probably right… but how do you know?—GoldRingChip 17:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: -- I found the election results reported in the "Nashville Tennessean" for January 20, 1875 via Newspapers.com. Edwin D. Morgan the Republican had 17 State Senate votes, and Francis Kernan the Democrat 13. Morgan had 52 Assembly votes, and Kernan 71. Kernan won 84 votes to 69. Fenton would not have been renominated even if he'd been inclined -- the party regulars were upset at his affiliation with the Liberal Republican movement of 1872.

Billmckern (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure you're right that Fenton wouldn't have been nominated, but it's not clear that he didn't try to run. Can you find a specific citation/reference saying that he didn't run? If so, can you put it in a REF?—GoldRingChip 11:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote you put in the reference doesn't say he wasn't an active candidate for renomination. It just says he wasn't renominated. —GoldRingChip 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's self evident that if he got two votes and the other guy got 40, he wasn't campaigning actively. I can go back to 1874 and cite news stories which referred to the race to succeed Fenton, as though it was already a given that he would not be renominated. I also found stories from 1874 which suggested that if Fenton was going to be reelected, it would be as the Democratic nominee, with the idea being that Democrats would join with Liberal Republicans. That didn't transpire because Democrats had enough votes in the Assembly to elect their own candidate, and didn't need Liberal Republican help.

I don't know what more you want, but I think I've taken this discussion as far as I can.

Billmckern (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry we couldn't find anything clearer. Certainly its possible, even likely, that he wasn't campaigning actively, but that's not enough for us to say he wasn't a candidate. Until we find something more certain to WP's standards, we have to leave it as either "unknown" or "possible."20:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Write whatever you think is best. As I said, I believe I've taken these conversations as far as I can.

Billmckern (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources that "Contemporary newspaper accounts indicate Sharon was elected on January 12, 1875"?—GoldRingChip 17:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldRingChip: -- Several newspapers from January, 1875 include details of Sharon's election to the U.S. Senate. The "Arizona Weekly Citizen" (Tuscon, AZ) for Saturday, January 16 reported that Sharon had been elected, and that the election had taken place "last Tuesday" -- that would be January 12.

The "Los Angeles Herald" for January 16, 1875 carried the same story, as did the "Arizona Sentinel" (Yuma, AZ) for January 16. I found all of these sources via Newspapers.com.

Billmckern (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Great! I added an election link and put a REF on the date. Can you find the specific reference and put it in the REF?—GoldRingChip 11:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The citation doesn't say he wasn't a candidate for renomination. It just says he wasn't renominated. —GoldRingChip 14:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I cited shows that Sharon wasn't even nominated in the legislature for the 1881 election, which as an incumbent Senator he certainly would have been if he had been an active candidate. The Republican nomination, which was largely a courtesy or a ceremonial act (like Morgan's in New York in 1875), went to former Congressman Thomas Wren. Wren then lost the legislative election to James G. Fair, whose election was already a foregone conclusion because the Democratic Party had a majority in the legislature.

Billmckern (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He might not have been nominated for some other reason. It's not up to WP editors to speculate.. Like with the NY case above, we need more.20:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Write whatever you think is best. As I said, I believe I've taken these conversations as far as I can.

Billmckern (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you don't understand about plain English:

• Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Find-a-Grave
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 149#findagrave.com redux

It's a self-published website. See: WP:SPS 32.218.41.1 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]