Archives

Archive 1: 2006–April 25, 2008 Archive 2: April 25, 2008–Jan. 3, 2009 Archive 3: Jan. 4, 2008–June 12, 2009

• I will respond to your comments on my talk page unless you request otherwise.

Thanks for your GA review of Bill Bradley. I think 90% of what you noted is stuff I would like to have changed but I was hoping someone else would have come along while I was working on it. I also wondered about the two images (a thing I should know more about) and I thought they were unsuitable...I guess I was right. There are one or two things I might disagree on but we can discuss that later if need be. I'll be working on it this weekend; thanks again for the review. I'll get back to you.  Frank  |  talk  19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably need several more days on this article; do you see any problem with leaving it open for GA through the weekend?  Frank  |  talk  16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :) So long as you are working on it I will leave it open. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, it looks like I've managed to get most of the items done. The lede may well generate more comments; that's a bunch of "new" content, so I'll continue watching the talk page for any additional comments you may have.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've compiled a list of pages by using the pages in the categories in this list, and removing anything you had edited in the last 5000 edits. I've also found 797 articles in "unassessed" that are using stub templates. Want I should tag 'em? –xeno^talk 00:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great.! Would you mind if I edited your list to remove a few categories first? I made a note at the project, and a couple users are working away at the unassessed articles with me. We have about a third of them went through now. I keep bumping into other things to do so it is taking me a bit longer than I intended. AWB certainly is speeding things up though!

I found a bug, maybe, in the kingbot pluggin. It is not putting in the photo needed parameter when I am telling it to. Not really a big deal though. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, edit the list to your heart's content. That's why I put it in projectspace.

I don't even see where needs-photo is available in the plugin? I thought you needed a custom thing for that? –xeno^talk 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you are in assessment mode, and you are assessing a page, it gives you a pop up box where you enter the quality and importance rating, it also gives you a spot to mark for maintenance too, like "needs attention" and "needs infobox". Well all the maintenance parameters work, except "needs photo". I made the removal of a few categories. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be something in wrong with our banner syntax too. I have noticed that the parameter for needs image varies among some projects. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, you could always add an alias for the parameter. Can you give me an example of a page where you put it but it's not working?

I'm almost done tagging the net-new pages. Based on your comments and a review of your AWB work, it looks like you guys are already combing the "unassessed" category and doing stuff over-and-above just tagging as "stub", so would you prefer I left it? Or should I go ahead with auto-tagging as stub the 797 articles I identified? –xeno^talk 14:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to go ahead and tag the stub articles. They will eventually get manually reviewed at some point. But just for the sake having a temporary measure in place until they are reviewed manually, it would be worth it in my opinion.

Again in regards to the image paremeter. I just assessed Hondorus, Indiana. For the class options I choose stub, for the importance\priority, I choose low. Under settings where you can also mark for maintenance, I checked needs infobox and photo requested, but no no photo requested paramenter was added. Again, its not really a big deal. For the most part there are about four of us who ever go out and take pictures, and we buzz each other if we have requests. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plugin isn't co-operating me right now for manual assess to see what you're talking about... Anyhow unfortunately the person who created it doesn't really maintain it anymore nor do the AWB devs that often... Gotta find a pioneering VB programmer who can pimp it out for us. I'll get to those assessments. –xeno^talk 15:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok with VB, but I don't have compiler for it. I am pretty good with Pascal and Delphi though, I use them daily. I have never really looked at the wiki api though. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft provides a free compiler I think. You should check out the code for the kingbot plugin and see if you can fix it up. See also all the suggestions I left at WT:Plugin++ =).

Please see also: Wikipedia talk:INDIANA#Territorial expansionism by Indiana Wikiproject??. –xeno^talk 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing new & improved Mk V auto-assessement. Are you interested in giving it a shot?

There was also a suggestion to clean up the unknown importance; do you think you could break up WP:WikiProject Indiana/Categories into a default lowest importance (low/med/high) ? (Leaving anything that's too complicated in an "do not tag" at the bottom)

Let me know on both counts. –xeno^talk 02:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I should be able to give that a shot tommorrow using the new pluggin. For default importance on cats, I should probably try to get input from the rest of the project on that. I will do that tommorrow too. But tht shouldn't be too hard. Most cats would all be low importance. My French in-laws re visiting today. :) 13:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)~

Sure, take your time. Xenobot just completed a task for WikiProject Chicago. See here for an idea of the edits it was making. I can make it more strict, i.e., only tag if two other projects agree. Let me know.

I can also send you the settings file if you want to try it. –xeno^talk 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI someone from WP:CHI has put together a list for default-importance, but they're holding off letting the bot loose on it. You might want to take a look for any insight: User:Pknkly/TempWork01. –xeno^talk 16:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So I organized the categories based on our current assessment heirachy. Don't use it just yet though, I am buzzing our more active members to take a look to make sure they don't want to tweak it or have a problem with it altogether. Here it is Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana/Categories —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, task running now, please do let me know if you notice any issues. User:Xenobot/A shows how the bot is presently making a decision on class. –xeno^talk 01:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI your template is not current supporting "class=current". –xeno^talk 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyright status for images owned/taken by the Government of Indiana? I think you've dealt with some images like this, but is there anything in writing on IN.gov? Specifically, I want to know what to use for the licensing for the map images here. Although provided by the Star, they say the source is the Secretary of State's office. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends techinically on whether or not the image is "part of the public records" of the state. You can check out Indiana Code 5-13-4 for the law dealing with public works. In a nutshell, the state of Indiana holds copyright on all works produced by the government. However, any work which is part of the public records, which would include images like the state seal, or official districting maps, are all clearly public records and there is no problem in using them. The state waives all its rights in controlling image and can only force you to stop using the work by writing you a letter and providing adequate explanation as to why you cannot use it (which is basically that they have to prove that your use of the image harms the public or government in some way). The grey area is in what is public records. The law says that any work created by "Any board, commission, department, division, bureau, committee, agency, office, instrumentality, or authority, by whatever name designated, exercising any part of the executive, administrative, judicial, or legislative power of the state" is a public record. It also is more detailed and says ""Public record" means any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics." So by a broad interpretation, pretty well anything created by the state is free to use, although they own it and can ask you stop if there is a good reason. And "In the case of electronically stored data, [the public is allowed] to manually transcribe and make notes, abstracts, or memoranda or to duplicate the data onto a disk, tape, drum, or any other medium of electronic storage." If you read over the law, there is a pretty fair range of exceptions. Certain boards and agencies, and the use of some logos are limited, as well as certain criminal records.

The template used on a number of Indiana images is the {{pd-because|reason}} When I have used it, I just put "because the copyright for the work is held by the state of Indiana, its duplication is permitted without limitation by the Indiana Code 5-14-3, and the state has waived all restrictions on use of the work." —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I hope to add those maps to the relevant articles this weekend, then. And thanks for working with Xeno on article importance tagging. That should be useful in organizing priorities. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! anytime :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this photo count as a state image with Indiana copyright? This and other governor portraits would be useful. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 23:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should think so. The governor's portraits belong to the IHB, commissioned and paid for out of IHB budget, and displayed in the state library. 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charles Edward.

You seemed in favour of coloured links for stubs. May I ask you to express your opinion in the newly created poll? (Please reread the proposal, many of the deatails have changed.) GeometryGirl (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Dresser, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 06:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was the one that deleted the image. It had a clearly incorrect tag: PD-USGov. I've restored it. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. As a part of going through the NRHP county lists, I always check communities to see if they have pictures of the buildings that are NRHP-listed, and I figured that I might as well throw away some of the garbage :-) Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about it, and I really don't think Xenobot needs to make 2700 edits tagging Indiana article talk pages for importance. I mean, that's only there for us, the WPIN contributors, right? Well, since we've got Wikipedia:WikiProject Indiana/Popular pages, that's completely unnecessary. Truly, article importance isn't based on its category topic, but its readership. The articles listed on Popular pages are the Top 500 most important Indiana articles, and what we should base what articles we improve on that. Perhaps we could instead add a link to the list on the banner. Tagging 2700 articles for importance when very few editors use them and there's a more accurate alternative doesn't make sense to me. I hope that other Wikiprojects will also learn of the Popular pages feature. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on how you are defining 'importance'. While it is certainly "important" (dic-def) to have your most popular pages improved as much as possible, popular pages does not always translate into "importance" (WP-def). History of Indiana, for example, is not one of your popular pages. But I don't think anyone would deny that it is of top importance to your project.

Of course, I should probably just keep quiet as if you decide to do away with importance, it'll be less work for lil' ole me =) –xeno^talk 23:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course History of Indiana is top importance even though it doesn't get as many hits, but the system's not perfect. In theory we should rank every article based on what seems most integral to Indiana, but in practice we should cater to our readers by concentrating the most-read articles. I would rather work on articles more likely to be read than those with more perceived importance (but still those I'm interested in of course!). No offense if I'm slamming the purpose of your bot, and never mind if it saves you work, but I don't see the point in tagging every article. Besides, I think most higher-importance articles are already tagged, but those not tagged would be marked as unimportant anyway. Happy editing, Reywas92^Talk 00:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't worry, I don't take offense at all. This is totally up to you guys, I just figured I could lend some insight, as we've had a similar discussion at WP:VG. –xeno^talk 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you for the most part Reywas92. Focusing on developing our most read articles should be a priority and popular pages if definatly out best tool for that. And I think for the most part, out present importance ratings are pretty well right on. My understanding of the importance rating though is that it is more intended for WP:Wikipedia 1.0, where project's like ours are not necessarily determining what is important to the project, but what rather is important to the overall encyclopedia. By putting top importance on something, we are saying, "this definatly must be in any official release of Wikipedia, or the encyclopedia is not complete". The 1.0 bot picks the articles using our ratings. Although I was not around way back then, I believe the entire wiki project assessment system was created\redesigned for that purpose, although it has morphed somewhat since then. I am gradually going through all the unassessed articles still, so eventually I will get to manually assessing them eventually. We can leave the importance assessments out for now then and Xeno some work! He is a busy beaver with lots of other good stuff to do I imagine. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it, I can do the importance gig as planned if you still want me to. Xenobot will be there for most of the articles anyway inheriting classes. –xeno^talk 01:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I am doing the GA Review for Marshall. Any questions; feel free to ask. --Roisterer (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do a review. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your wonderful peer review of the article! I can't thank you enough! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor asked for an extension on the hold to improve the article, but I can't see that anything significant has been done, so I'll just go ahead and delist it. Lampman (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review on Texas Oil Boom. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I left some questions on the review on the talk page. Please don't feel obligated to respond if you are busy. Thanks again. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article significantly since your review.

Most of the referencing issues you mentioned — I think — were simply references at the beginning of paragraphs where I guess you were looking to see them at the end. So I have moved them accordingly. Still there were areas where references were lacking (some very lacking) and I added them accordingly.

I attempted to clean the prose to address some of your concerns. I don't know if I did so adequately at this point.

I added in some additional information based on your content concerns though not so much as you had requested:

• Some things I simply did not find sources for (e.g. number of people employed in oil at this time) though I'll keep looking as I have time.
• The article is already pushing even the upper limits for recommended size (it is at 63kB and the recommended limit is 40-60). To add more of the content you are recommending would push it way over these limits. So I am unsure whether you are recommending removing content to compensate or what.

Anyway, if you feel like copyediting as you offered before, feel free. I am mostly done for the moment with major edits unless you have more suggestions or want to point out where I misinterpreted your recommendations.

As always, don't feel obligated if you are busy.

Thanks so much.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you do decide to look at the article again please feel free to pepper it with {{Citation needed}} tags wherever merited. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Oh, and I removed all but one of the images you were concerned about. The one I kept in I've requested more info on. --Mcorazao (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely be able to get to that copy edit! :) I should have time tomorrow to go over it, and will try to respond more thoroughly to your comments. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hard work!

Quick questions:

• Most of the "citation needed" statements you tagged already have citations. Are you suggesting that the citations should be repeated on these sentences (as opposed to one citation at the end of the paragraph)?
  • Thats right, if its the same as the one later one, it needs to be repeated at those spots. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• "no widely agreed upon end date" - I'm not sure where I would find a source that explicitly made this statement (sources typically pick their own end dates if they specify a particular end at all; I have never seen one actually say "the other guys might use different dates"). I could simply remove that particular statement but then the paragraph becomes unclear.
  • What I would do is add a note that says: "For example, X says it ended in 1930, Y says it ended in 1935, Z says it ended in 1940." That kind of synthesis is ok. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your rephrasing of the Timeframe section implies some abrupt changes at the end of WWII which the sources do not back up. I think you were trying to imply that the second paragraph is vague but that was intentional as there was no particular event that marked a sharp endpoint. Is it better to take this section out altogether? The section is not essential but I think it is valuable as it frames the overall discussion.

You could keep it, it'd just add some sort of trailer on the end to the effect that the production continues to the present time. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, with your expertise in writing GAs and FAs, I think you would be great for the WP:Wikicup. It's a friendly competition in which you score points for improvements to Wikipedia. If you're interested you can sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups. Reywas92^Talk 18:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered joining it, but my problem is that in December through February I am so exceptionally busy with other things that I don't have a great deal of time for Wikipedia, and I fear that although I could compete well after that, I would probably end up not making much a movement in the first rounds and probably get eliminated off the back before I could begin to get started. I think though that I may give it a shot anyway. I could probably eek out a few DYKs and maybe a GA or two during January and February, but I don't know that it would be enough to keep me in. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first round lasts until the end of March, and I think the top 32 or more will progress, which I'm sure you could do. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do it, and together we can try to make the final two.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 19:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan! haha! Ok I will give it a shot. I have a couple articles close to GA now that I have been needing to get around too, plus I got Sherman Minton in by sandbox. And Governor of Indiana is not too far from FA. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just looked...the Indiana flag is still available.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were so generous with your help in the past I wondered if I might be able to ask your assistance again. Please don't feel obligated.

My article "History of the Galveston Bay Area" is on-hold in GA review at the moment for improvements. The biggest concern is poor writing. Would you have a few minutes for a quick once over? Since it is only GA it does not need to be pristine but since you are a better writer than I am I thought you might be able to suggest improvements for any glaringly bad writing (I have tried to address the reviewers specific concerns but he/she indicated that the article needs more polishing overall).

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would certainly like to help out. I am exceptionally busy lately, and won't be available to edit alot until at least mid February. If I have some spare time this week though I will give a copy edit for you. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you'd like to weigh in at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#Proposal to delete signature parameter? Connormah (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, seeing how I have used the paremter on a number of articles, it seems to me useful to keep it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much!

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

• What is the "bay system"? I presume it is a natural network of streams, or something of that nature. But I am not sure, you might want to clarify that.
  • "Bay system" is a term used to refer to the fact that most large bays are typically conglomerations of multiple bodies of water. Galveston Bay is actually subdivided into multiple bays and lakes. I reworded a bit so hopefully it is more clear.
• Is this particularly relevant? I removed it: "although there was a previously established Spanish settlement known as Galveztown in what is now Louisiana". If not is makes the sentence it was in rather wordy. If you re add it I would make it a separate sentence.
  • The only reason I included that detail was because I did not want to imply that this was the first use of this name. Since the name honors a historical figure I thought this helped to point out that the Texas community was not somehow viewed as "special" by the fact that it was given the governor's name.
• "They named the site El Orcoquisac and established a Catholic mission. The Spanish were not successful at maintaining trade with the natives and the post was abandoned within a few years." It would be better if you could change the end to be more definitive. By what date was it abondoned? Or about how long did it remain in use?
  • I have kind of read different things which is why I wasn't more specific. The military post actually got moved although I am given to understand that trading still continued for a while in Orcoquisac. I was vague so as to avoid the complexity.
• "o major battles were fought on the mainland shoreline but the region saw some action as the conflict moved from the battles at Galveston to Harrisburg and Houston." Its not clear to me what this sentance means. I think there is some words missing
  • This was one I didn't know how to address well. The nature of the military engagements on the bay shores is not detailed in the books I have read. The books just mention in passing the presence of Union troops and the troops clearly went from Galveston to Harrisburg and Houston which meant there was large scale troop movement through the Bay Area. It would be wrong to imply that the Bay Area was outside the theater of the war but I don't have too many details about what actually happened there.
• "Much of the Allen Ranch was liquidated opening up new development around Pasadena and other bayside communities." Why was the ranch liquidated?
  • Well, as ranching declined the Allens had been branching into other things. With the death of ... I think it was the founder's grandson ... the heirs sold most of the ranch since most of them had no real interest in the business. I could go into detail on this but this seemed to me like too much of a detail to get into (there are a lot of details about the rise and fall of enterprises that I have not discussed because it just seemed too much to get into).
• " The first refinery by the bay opened in Texas City, followed by refineries in Baytown and Pasadena." - are there years for this?
  • Yes, I'll add this in.

--Mcorazao (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Glad I can help. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've done another great job! You've got a nice start on the Cup. However, I was confused by the Reelection campaign section because Minton lost to Raymond E. Willis, not Frederick Van Nuys. Minton and Willis were class 1 Senators, but Van Nuys was class 3 during the same period. Willis is in the electoral box, but isn't mentioned elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 21:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw where you commented on that, I need to look back at my source. I probably just mixed up the names. It hard to keep all his fights straight, he seemed to get into it with almost everyone! There is another spot where I did that too that I found. I am trying to flush all that out with the other two sources I am using now. Gugin is pretty critical of Minton too, I am trying to find someone who has some nicer things to say about him, for balance. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I had commented on that, but I did hide the part about Truman's reelection campaign the year after the election. Yeah, I did notice that the whole article was cited to a single book, so another one may be good. But I found it odd that he's consistently Democratic while in the Senate, but on the Court you call him conservative. Did he completely change his views? Reywas92^Talk 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange, yes. According to the sources so far, he actually disliked many of the decision he made, but felt there was no other way to interpret the law. In looking at a couple other source though, he was rated the most conservative justice on the court for a number of years. I think conservative, in a judicial sense, is a little different than in the political sense though. He more or less thought that the government could do just about whatever it wanted, provided they passed a law to allow it. His decision essentially determined whether the government had granted the powers in a correct manner. Most of his cases though appear to not be particularly politically connected, just mundane stuff. I am still trying to develop the judicial sections, they are kinda flat now, especially the supreme court section. I have a book that critiques the court and analyzes their decisions, I am hoping to get something useful out of it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great! Thank you very much! I think you had already added a few to Commons, but I'll take it if you have more you think are helpful. I'd like this to be my first GA, but I've still got a way to go. And, of course, congrats on another main pager! Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will start uploading them, I might be able to photoshop a few to better quality. Thanks too! I am suprised they put that on the main page. It makes me nervous when an article I worked on is up there, I don't know why. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! A great article for the main page today. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It wouldn't be there without your expertise copy-editing skills. :) Cudos to you! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On January 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sherman Minton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've fixed the issues you raised; thanks for the helpful feedback :). Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the review page. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review :). In regards to images, the first one is considered PD; while there are legal problems over here which could get the uploader into problems (and has), the servers the images are stored on is in a nation where freedom of panorama and similar is accepted. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Charles Edward, Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome wants you!

We are currently asking for concrete, constructive proposals on how to avoid the deletion of 48,000 articles, created by 17,500 editors, through sourcing. These constructive proposals will then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Wikipedia:Wikiproject new user welcome << For now, participation on this userpage is by invitation only.

Ikip 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]