Jump to content

User talk:Historyguy1138

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

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Historyguy1138, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! asilvering (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you asilvering. Much appreciated, I will do my best to use these tools you have given me. I noticed I cannot reply to the others on teahouse as the reply button is greyed out. Anything I can do on my end? Thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

[edit]

Thanks for the response. I've no idea why the Reply option was greyed out - I've seen that sometimes when the message you want to reply to is unsigned, but mine wasn't. Have a look at Nick Moyes' answer to you as well. Cheers --ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. God keep you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyguy1138, are you sure you didn't have any open reply windows somewhere else on the same page? This happens to me all the time - I start writing a reply, decide not to post it, and navigate somewhere else, but then when I load the page again later, it's saved my half-finished reply and automatically opens it. Then I don't notice that's happened and wonder why I can't click any other reply buttons. -- asilvering (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. But maybe. I will keep an eye on that from now on. Good point. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Battle of Muddy Flat has been accepted

[edit]
Battle of Muddy Flat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JSFarman (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Attacks on the United States

[edit]

Hey Historyguy1138! I came across your profile from all your contributions to the list of wars involving the United States. I wanted to see if you would be interested in helping out on a sister-article draft I have been working on since November 2024: Draft:Attacks on the United States, which is listing/summarizing every attack that occurred against the United States' history. Both articles have similar topics, so you might be interested and I wanted to let you know about it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weather Writer. Yes I think I think someone mentioned this project to me once. I am interested, but I would like some details.
I forget who it was I talked to, but isn't it pretty going to be a pretty broad. And it will include specific attacks within wars. For example it would include skirmishes in battles such as the Confederate attack at Devil's Den and Pickett's Charge? What are the parameters that we would consider an attack for this project and how specific are we being?
As I understand it there has been some sort of merge in this article and the person whom I talked to said we make break this article by century due to the broadness of the subject.
Thanks. (:
Side note. Have you enjoyed my edits? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the "scope" of the article is mentioned as the second sentence in the lead: "Attacks against the United States include invasions, military offensives, raids, bombardment and airstrikes on it's military, terrorist bombings and shootings, and any other deliberate act of violence against the United States government or military."
So actually, Pickett's Charge is already listed in the draft under Draft:List of attacks on the United States#Gettysburg campaign, since the Gettysburg campaign itself is one-big invasion of the Union/United States. For the very few sort of campaign/invasions of the US itself, my vision was to have the section be the invasion itself and all the subsequent events during the invasion (for example in the Gettysburg campaign, that includes the battle of Gettysburg and Pickett's Charge) are just summarized in the header.
Besides the initial stages of WW2 when the Japanese invaded several US territories, every attack against the US is typically some stand-alone event (like the 2012 Benghazi attack), where they are still generally apart of some war, just not campaign of multiple-events/multiple-attacks against the U.S.
For the most part, I think roughly 95% of the attacks are already listed as a header in the articles (note, Draft:Attacks on the United States (1900–1945) & Draft:Attacks on the United States (2000–present) are split out articles due to page size requirements). To really see the scope, check out the events already summarize (1776 to roughly 1945). I just really finished up through 1945 last night, so 1946 to 2025 is still being entirely worked on and will still look "bad" or maybe even "scopeless". Pre-1945 is a good representation of the articles though. Hopefully that helps explain the article scope some! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we including Rebellions lie the Whiskey rebellion, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party insurgency, the Business Plot and the Bonus Army, the Panama Riots of 1964, the great railroad strike of 1877, the coal wars, or the various slave rebellions in the U.S., the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the Wounded Knee Occupation, the Battle of Athens (1946), the Ruby Ridge standoff, or the Waco siege, the Oyster wars, the Earp Vendetta Ride, the California Genocide, or the Rum War, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, or the Timber Rebellion?
What about gang wars like the Tong Wars or the Castellammarese War.
What about the Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871 or other massacres.
What about wars from countries that later joined the U.S. like the Hawaiian Rebellions, the unification of Hawaii, or the Texas Revolution.
Again some of these are massacres, riots, assassinations, gang wars, protests, I know you have covered some of these, but there are nuisances with a lot of these particular examples. Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some or a lot of those can probably be added. Reliable sources (RS) will typically be clear if it is an attack specifically against the US government or US military. For example, the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike is clearly not at the US government/military and no RS will say that it is an attack against the US. While, Business Plot is specifically towards the US government as an entity, so RS will confirm it is an attack against the US. In short: Include if against the US as an entity and exclude if it is not against the US. Always rely on RS and anything can be added in good faith (WP:BOLD). Chances are, if an event is not an attack against the US, someone will challenge it and/or a talk page discussion can occur.
The various discussions that have occurred at Talk:List of wars involving the United States show it may not be a perfect scope, but for the most part, it is defined well enough, so any of these borderline-style events may just need a discussion to say "Yes, Include" or "No, Exclude". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm gotcha. Let me ask you this are you the main creator or brain behind these articles? I think if I work on these I will primarily focus on attacks and rebellions against the U.S.A., but for things that maybe do not exactly have a "perfect scope" I will consult with you. What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good! Also, the previous "version" for this type of article was this former mainspace article, which was deleted and merged into this new draft-in-progress article. For all intents and purposes, Wikipedia has never had a list of times the US was attacked. So, this is sort of creating the article entirely from scratch. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Just to let you know this will probably be very sporadic with me. I take the editing seriously, but this is a hobby so bear with me. Looking forward to working with you and thank you for the consideration. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardment of Greytown

[edit]

Hello, Historyguy1138,

In late 2024, I expanded someone else’s Start-class article called Bombardment of Greytown,  which, after some extensive suggestions, was declared a B Level article by Hawkeye7. In the course of the run-up to that B level bestowment, I had received, thanks to my watchlist, no less than 13 email notifications alerting me to changes made, ending on 7 December 2024.

Having received the B Level imprimatur and having ceased to receive any more email alerts as to further activity, I assumed no more changes were being made. But, recently, I glanced at the article, and I noticed substantial additions have been made to it in 2025 by you and a warning template added to the top by Grutness that, “This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. etc.” Again, my watchlist never alerted me that any of this was happening. Hence, my delay in reaching out to you and Grutness.

When I contacted Grutness, he said “most of it is a good article, but [one] bit in particular stood out as a red light.” I just replaced that line with what he suggested as an alternative.

The additions made to the article by you were mostly to the backstory and I am hoping they might be largely deleted because I think they slow down unnecessarily the run up to the titular incident and make an already long and complicated piece even more so. (I hope we can thrash out a mutually satisfactory settlement!) Am I right in assuming that much of your added material is based on Robert Scheina’s book? If he is the source of the line that “Solon Borland . . . was forced to resign,” he is incorrect. Borland was severely reprimanded by Secretary of State Marcy and, in a fit of pique, he then resigned. “Whether or not Marcy’s note was actually intended to induce Borland’s resignation,” James Woods has written, “it had that effect.” (See Borland’s letter of resignation here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=txu.059172149398109&seq=439. He was so angry with Marcy that he sent it over his head, directly to President Pierce.) Will-DubDub (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In late 2024, I expanded someone else’s Start-class article called Bombardment of Greytown,  which, after some extensive suggestions, was declared a B Level article by Hawkeye7. In the course of the run-up to that B level bestowment, I had received, thanks to my watchlist, no less than 13 email notifications alerting me to changes made, ending on 7 December 2024."
Congratulations for your success and well done with your research and formatting.
"But, recently, I glanced at the article, and I noticed substantial additions have been made to it in 2025 by you and a warning template added to the top by Grutness that, “This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. etc.” Again, my watchlist never alerted me that any of this was happening. Hence, my delay in reaching out to you and Grutness."
I may have slightly had something to do with that I added the Bombardment of Greytown to the List of wars involving the United States. Followers of that page including myself have been quite active in the last few months, and so I am guessing some people have become more attracted to this article.
"When I contacted Grutness, he said “most of it is a good article, but [one] bit in particular stood out as a red light.” I just replaced that line with what he suggested as an alternative."
Truthfully I did think the tone was off as well, so I am happy you recently fixed it. That stuff was there before I touched the article.
"The additions made to the article by you were mostly to the backstory and I am hoping they might be largely deleted because I think they slow down unnecessarily the run up to the titular incident and make an already long and complicated piece even more so. (I hope we can thrash out a mutually satisfactory settlement!) Am I right in assuming that much of your added material is based on Robert Scheina’s book? If he is the source of the line that “Solon Borland . . . was forced to resign,” he is incorrect. Borland was severely reprimanded by Secretary of State Marcy and, in a fit of pique, he then resigned. “Whether or not Marcy’s note was actually intended to induce Borland’s resignation,” James Woods has written, “it had that effect.” (See Borland’s letter of resignation here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=txu.059172149398109&seq=439. He was so angry with Marcy that he sent it over his head, directly to President Pierce.)"
Let me take a look and I will get back to you soon. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again so these are my thoughts and please take the context to be being serious but friendly. (:
"The additions made to the article by you were mostly to the backstory and I am hoping they might be largely deleted because I think they slow down unnecessarily the run up to the titular incident and make an already long and complicated piece even more so."
Which section in particular would you like deleted please? With all due respect these additions give more context as to why the United States were interested in the territory in the first place, and gives way more information about the British machinations in the area. Before my additions the Mosquito Coast article actually provided way more details concerning this than this article even did. In fact the British context was barely mentioned at all, which made it seem a bit more arbitrary as to why the Americans bombarded the town in the first place.
Also little is mentioned of the titular incident other than the intro in the first place, would you have more context to add in the middle of the article to give more details about what transpired?
Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable
I realize that in any article there is always a balance of giving every article "accuracy and full coverage of the most important aspects of a topic" and that "every effort should be made to also make articles accessible and pleasant to read for less-prepared readers"
And that "It is especially important to make the lead section understandable using plain language, and it is often helpful to begin with more common and accessible subtopics, then proceed to those requiring advanced knowledge or addressing niche specialties.", but also that article should "not take prior knowledge for granted. Articles should be self-contained as much as possible, rather than relying on excessive links to explain unfamiliar concepts."
But I would respond to these guidelines that these particular aspects as follows:
1. I think we are giving the article a more full and accurate coverage as possible (while maintaining accessibility) namely British interests in the area and the buildup to the events leading to US involvement are necessary are necessary. If it is a question of accessibility to a difficult subject, then I can understand it is a multilayered scenario. But if we look at articles with other complicated scenario with a high emphasis on the historical such as the Israel-Palestine Conflict, then we should not oversimplify articles that leaves out content.
So overall the issue is mainly full coverage and accuracy over accessibility and the balance of both is debated. These are general policies. However a lot of Wikipedia editors would argue that you oversimplification can include ""Oversimplification also includes completely omitting a topic within an article merely because it is felt that it is inherently incapable of being explained in a way that a person of average intelligence or education would understand, or omitting subject matter that is necessary for a complete understanding of the whole of the topic of which it is part, merely because it is felt that the subject matter will only be of interest to academics or "specialists".
Now to be fair to you the oversimplification link is a Wikipedia essay based on how several wiki editors interpret accessibility not a policy itself. In a similar vain there is a debate over how simple Wikipedia. Originally this wiki was created to simplify technical terms for people learning English, but many Wikipedia's have used it to simplify Wikipedia articles and include less content. So there is debate about it, but maybe consider created a simple Wikipedia version of the Bombardment article. I would be happy to help you with that if that interests you. Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Am I right in assuming that much of your added material is based on Robert Scheina’s book? If he is the source of the line that “Solon Borland . . . was forced to resign,” he is incorrect. Borland was severely reprimanded by Secretary of State Marcy and, in a fit of pique, he then resigned. “Whether or not Marcy’s note was actually intended to induce Borland’s resignation,” James Woods has written, “it had that effect.”
Well spotted. (:
I double checked both your link and this one on page 60 https://books.google.com/books?id=FWvZxuTuIVQC&dq=Solon+Borland&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q=Solon%20Borland&f=false
It seems to me the argument could be made that he was forced or pushed to resign, but in any case he did it himself.
It seems that the way Scheina wrote it, maybe debated. Because on one hand I can see how one would write he was forced to resign per se, or to your point is it more that he was just angry and resigned because Marcy criticized him? I can't tell personally, but we should write on that.
Maybe we should reword it from "The American representative in Nicaragua, Solon Borland, considered the treaty breached and argued openly for the US annexation of Nicaragua and the rest of Central America, for which he was forced to resign"
to
"The American representative in Nicaragua, Solon Borland, considered the treaty breached and argued openly for the US annexation of Nicaragua and the rest of Central America, for which he was either forced to resign or due to federal criticism he felt humiliated and resigned." (Or words to that effect at least. Happy to reword that differently if you have a better suggestion). (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about?
The American representative in Nicaragua, Solon Borland, considered the treaty breached and argued openly for the US annexation of Nicaragua. Borland was severely reprimanded by Secretary of State Marcy and, in a fit of pique, he resigned. “Whether or not Marcy’s note was actually intended to induce Borland’s resignation,” historian James M. Woods has written, “it had that effect.”*
  • James M. Woods, “Expansionism as Diplomacy: The Career of Solon Borland in Central America 1853–1854,” The Americas: Quarterly Review of Inter-American Cultural History 40, no. 3 (January 1984), 410. Will-DubDub (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds perfect friend. We should include both citations and the other links I sent too. Do you want to add any of this or should I? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don’t we hold everything in abeyance for a while. I want some time to read again all of your additions and see how they match up to my research about those events. This is going to take some time.
And can you elaborate on your latest missive? By “both citations” do you mean my James Woods and one previously sent by you? If so, can you remind me of what that previous one by you was? Thanks! Also, you make reference to ”other links I sent too.” Can you remind me of those, also? Again, thanks! Will-DubDub (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Take your time.
These links: page 60 https://books.google.com/books?id=FWvZxuTuIVQC&dq=Solon+Borland&pg=PA49#v=onepage&q=Solon%20Borland&f=false
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=txu.059172149398109&seq=439.
And Robert Scheina’s book. So 3 citations in total for the fit of pique vs. forced resignation theories. Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I wanted to compliment your professionalism.
So far you have demonstrated tact, civility, well formed diction and research, and a willingness to compromise. These are all the virtues of a professional wiki editor. And in like manner it is clear you care about unbiased historiography. Bravo. Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links and the compliment. Below is the passage from the Arkansas book into which I have interleaved comments. I think it illustrates what we're up against with this story and why I try to use primary sources whenever possible. This is not like doing another D-Day book or another life of Lincoln. This is really obscure and much of the secondary source information, as this illustrates, is incorrect.
Secretary of State William Marcy reprimanded the ambassador [all US diplomats were called ministers or envoys until 1893, when the word ambassador started being adopted slowly] for some of his controversial public statements, and Solon Borland had already resigned his post and was preparing to leave for home [poorly structured wording, confusing the timing of events] when he was faced with the most severe crisis of his diplomatic career. The British had, in 1848, seized a Nicaraguan city called San Juan del Norte, renaming it Greytown and placing officials from Jamaica in charge of its government. [The officials were from England, the author is confusing the fact that some of Greytown’s marshals, essentially policemen, were Blacks from Jamaica.] An American citizen, Cornelius Vanderbilt, had contracted with Great Britain to build a canal across Nicaragua [Untrue. Vanderbilt tried to enlist British banks into joining him in the endeavor, but they refused. See: T. J. Stiles, The First Tycoon, p. 191.] that was to start in Greytown. Ambassador Borland had been struggling to cancel any Nicaraguan agreement with Great Britain and to ensure that any canal built in that land would remain the property of the United States. [E. G. Squier, a predecessor of Borland, set up the canal contract between Vanderbilt and Nicaragua.] Now, as Borland was leaving, local authorities attempted to arrest a Captain Smith (a citizen of the United States and a passenger on the ambassador's ship) [he wasn't a passenger and it wasn't a ship; he was the patrón, or skipper, of the boat that was taking Borland to Greytown to leave for the US] saying that he had shot and killed a sailor [the patrón] on another ship [boat] after their two ships [boats] collided [Captain Smith ran into the other boat, which was tied to a river bank. They yelled at each other. Damage was minor and the boats separated. But a half hour later Captain Smith returned, rammed the other boat and shot its patrón dead.]. Solon refused to allow the officials of Greytown to board the ship, reportedly leveling a rifle at the officials seeking to make the arrest. (According to one source, Solon had grabbed this rifle out of the hands of one of the Jamaican officials in the arresting party. [He probably took the rifle from an American.]) In return, the officials refused to allow the ship to leave the harbor [an irrelevant red herring; the boat had docked and Borland was allowed to leave it, to travel, by rowboat, across the harbor to Greytown, to visit the US commercial agent there, where . . . ], and Solon himself was threatened with arrest (although he had diplomatic immunity [he didn't have diplomatic immunity, he falsely claimed it; he had resigned, effective 16 days earlier] and was never actually placed under arrest [he was never placed under arrest because Greytown's mayor interceded and reversed the decision of the head marshal, whose idea it was to arrest him for preventing the arrest of Captain Smith]). At some point during the argument, a [piece of broken] bottle was thrown at the ambassador, slightly wounding Solon on the head [cheek] and giving him a permanent scar. Solon eventually made his escape [his leaving was never interfered with, reports to the contrary notwithstanding] and reported the incident in Washington DC, strongly recommending a response by the U.S. government. [Here is the response he recommended for the entire population of Greytown: “I am unable to regard them in any other light than as pirates and outlaws,” Borland told Secretary Marcy, “upon whom punishment, to the extent of extermination, may be rightfully inflicted.”] Will-DubDub (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your research. I agree primary resources are superior. When it comes to your knowledge of Solon I concede all your points. In this area proceed as you see fit, you will get no pushback from me. I just ask that if you modify the article you continue to tie it in to the current content that we are in agreement with or are at least still researching.
On the matter of more specific British interests in this matter, I still hold (as I think you will to if not already), that the British interests, actions, and competition juxtaposed with the American is key to understanding this conflict.
But again as far as Solon is concerned, I consider your knowledge superior to my own at this point. (:
Well done and thanks for your contributions.
If I may I recommend you also look at the Mosquito Coast article as well, as I believe you have the talent and ability to add better information to it, if you so choose. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming by “this conflict” you mean the bombardment of Greytown, I’ve reworded the following statement of yours from above into a question:
On the matter of more specific British interests in this matter, I still hold (as I think you will to if not already), that the British interests, actions, and competition juxtaposed with the American is key to understanding this conflict.
In the matter of the bombardment of Greytown, who were the antagonists and what were their conflicting interests that led to the port’s razing?
Does my question seem equivalent to your statement? Will-DubDub (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I think so. The Mosquito Coast including Greytown was a British Protectorate and the Americans were trying to keep the British at bay, due to the Monroe Doctrine. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an alternative to the paragraphs you inserted into Bombardment of Greytown right after the Prelude subhead. I put my alternative in a new sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will-DubDub/sandbox3, so they might be viewed side-by-side with your changes, which I have left intact in the article.
I also think the first sentence of your additions to Aftermath should remain. That is: “British involvement in the Crimean War, together with the firm opposition of Britain's merchant class to a war with the United States, prevented any further diplomatic or military reaction from Britain.[16]” But I think the rest of that paragraph should be eliminated or moved elsewhere.  It jumps way ahead in the story and will throw off the readers’ sense of chronological order, given that what follows after that are descriptions of the immediate aftermath of the razing.
If we put your other Aftermath additions somewhere else (maybe at the end under a subhead entitled: Greytown’s Ultimate Fate), we might want to touch upon the decline of Greytown as a port when shifting river channels silted up the harbor and improvements at the Panama crossing — and Vanderbilts’ use of it — led to Greytown’s further decline. Will-DubDub (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again amazing job. You summarized the British stakes in this incident very well.
Only a few notes. If you could mention the Monroe doctrine somewhere I believe that is important.
As for this sentence "By 1859 British opinion was no longer supportive of their nation's presence in the Mosquito Coast. The British government returned the Bay Islands and ceded the northern part of the Mosquito Coast to Honduras, negotiating with Guatemala to enlarge the British territory in Belize as compensation. The next year, Britain signed the Treaty of Managua, ceding the rest of the Mosquito Coast to Nicaragua."
I think the information is still essential, but I agree it can be moved elsewhere. Also I think it should be mentioned that the Americans dropped the issue after the Mosquito coast was no longer a British Protectorate.
If you would like to keep, but rearrange these additions and moves, but still keep the general idea. I am all for that.
Also I like the idea of " a subhead entitled: Greytown’s Ultimate Fate".
Again Bravo to you sir.
I know what it can be like to make an article and have people change it. Because you have invested time, energy, and talent into this. But you have handled the whole situation well, and I believe this article is going to be all the more better for it, because of not only your talent, but willingness to compromise and do more research.
Job very very done. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just completed the material that I proposed be tagged on to the end of the Bombardment of Greytown article. You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will-DubDub/sandbox5# Will-DubDub (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a week since I alerted you to the latest proposed change to Bombardment of Greytown I have made which appears in my sandbox5 I linked to above. If you need more time, let me know. If I don’t hear anything from you in a three days, I’m going to go ahead and incorporate the proposed changes I made in sandbox3, which you approved of, and also those in my sandbox5.
BTW, I changed this line: “. . . negotiating with Guatemala to enlarge the British territory in Belize as compensation.” This implies a connection between the two treaties, and there was none. Will-DubDub (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am sorry, I though I messaged you already. No it sounds perfect very well balanced, but at the same time easy for the average reader. Job very well done. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Historyguy1138
I finished my latest changes to Bombardment of Greytown.
But don’t look for them on the article page. I copied all the coding from that page into a new sandbox of mine and made the changes there (altering the top matter slightly, so as not to confuse it with the real one). You can see that sandbox at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will-DubDub/sandbox6.
I don’t think there will be too many surprises. I made little tweaks here and there. But most of it is stuff you’ve already agreed to. Let me know if you have any other thoughts. If it passes your muster, I will transfer all the changes over to the real article and inform those three editors I mentioned earlier that there are changes for them to review.
Thanks for all your help and input.
Here is a list of most of the things I’ve done.
———————
Added word “historically” to first graph
Five initial paragraphs of Prelude section replaced with 5 new paragraphs
Expanded endnote 5: Diplomatic correspondence of the United States: inter-American affairs, 1831-1860 / selected and arranged by William R. Manning ... V.4
Replaced graph “Because Greytown owned” with “Greytown canceled the ATC’s”
Made “Besides Secretary Dobbins” its own graph
Deleted first graph of Aftermath section
Added four graphs to the end in two new sections: Post Bombardment Central America and Greytown’s Ultimate Fate
Combined Endnote 11 and 16 because they were citing same letter
Endnote 12 made Kirkland Memorial clickable blue as web link
Endnote 17 added “catalog pages”
Endnote 40 took out link to “Imperial Presidency”
End note 41 adding specific page number to Moore’s minutes
— Will-DubDub (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding Will-DubDub. Can't wait to see on the article.
Love the etchings too.
If I may ask what drew your interest to the subject? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered the story of Greytown’s demise 56 years ago. It was 1969, and I was writing for an alternative fortnightly newspaper in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The paper would soon reprint a list that had recently appeared in the Congressional Record as part of a debate on the Vietnam War. It was called, “Instances of Use of U.S. Armed ForcesAbroad, 1798–1945” and was issued by the State Department.
It simply said Greytown “was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.” I was astonished. The razing of a whole town for a slight to a diplomat seemed unconscionably heavy-handed.
I wrote a draft article about Greytown in October 1972, but the only searchable source at the time was the New York Times on microfilm, which was not as thoroughly indexed in its early years as it was later. I still have this draft but no record of submitting it anywhere. In 1982 I offered it or some variant to a popular-audience magazine (now defunct) called American History Illustrated. It was rejected.
Long story short, I didn’t take it up again until around 2007, when, as I noted in the article, 19th century newspapers and documents started showing up on the Internet as word searchable.
I will let you know when the article has been updated. Will-DubDub (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. And thank you. Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been updated. But I didn't want to inform the three other editors during a weekend. So I'll inform them Monday. I'm also thinking about adding some more images. But I wanted to wait to hear back from them on the text changes before I do that. (BTW, let me know if Wikipedia has already informed you of the update. And, if so, how soon after I completed the update.) Thanks again for all your input! Will-DubDub (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's great and gives great information. Generally speaking I will support you in the talk pages against the other 3 editors if they have a problem with it.
Well done. I can tell this is a passion project for some time for you. I am happy that it is coming together for you. And again thanks for making the article, I would probably have never known about it had you not made the article. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Historyguy1138,
Please double-check before you move a page so you are sure you are moving it to the correct namespace. If you have questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is regarding Draft:List of wars involving the 13 Colonies and the Illinois and Ohio Countries, then I apologize that was not intentional. I had a hard time submitting with that one.
Unless you are speaking of last weeks List of wars involving the United States? If that was the case then I and several other editors worked on that one. But happy to clarify to the best of my knowledge if that is what you are referencing. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me. Well done as always. :D Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries

[edit]

Hello, Historyguy1138,

Thank you for creating List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Many uncited potentially controversial statements, particularly in the "result" column.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|RachelTensions}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

RachelTensions (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RachelTensions: Thanks for the comments on how I can improve the lists.
Please keep in mind that the original list namely (List of wars involving the United States) has been around for at least over a decade since I started editing. All I did was (with mutual agreement with the majority of the editorss on this page was split the page into 3, create a linking page (with criteria), and completely created the (List of wars involving the 13 Colonies and the Illinois and Ohio Countries) on my own. And the citation problem has been an issue before long before my time.
That being said I am happy to help research and put citations in each section gradually. However what I will likely do is incrementally go in order on each list and add citations as I go, as I have been with the 13 colonies list.
Keep in mind though that for some of these wars, (especially the newer ones) some of the editors change those a lot and debate each other over those issues.
As far as controversial can you be a bit more specific as to which particular outcomes are controversial (and as long as I am not walking into a minefield with some editors), I will give those ones some deeper attention.
Thanks so much. And thank you for the sign reply tip. Still learning and I didn't know that one yet. You rock. :D
~~~~ Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RachelTensions: Hi Rachel please advice. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Phil Greenwald has been accepted

[edit]
Phil Greenwald, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:CNMall41 I appreciate your help. So exited it got published. (:
I am going to work on make it a non orphan article real soon, I was just waiting to publish it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi

[edit]

MOS:IMAGESIZE - "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 215x215px) should not be specified, because it ignores the user's base width setting. Thus upright=scaling factor is preferred when it is desired to present an image at other than the default width. Moxy🍁 01:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. Thank Moxy. I changed it back, it didn't work anyway. Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wars Template

[edit]

Hi, thanks for your work on splitting the List of wars involving the United States article—it was unusually long and definitely needed to be broken up.

I noticed that in one of the new articles you wrote:

This list is part of a larger series of list articles that cover the various wars if the United States from its colonial roots to the present.


This is exactly the kind of situation the Series template is intended for, and it seems like you were aiming to replicate that format, so I went ahead and created a template for it.

Right now the template is fairly basic—it just links to the relevant articles—but I hope to eventually expand it to include all U.S. related conflicts and improve on the already-existing Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces

Thanks again for your contributions! Elina9k (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, I saw on your userpage that you’re planning to work on something related to Swiss Mercenaries in the War of 1812.
 
I’ve actually been working on creating a List of leaders involved in the War of 1812. The current War of 1812 infobox only includes about four commanders, which is par for all military conflict infoboxes, but still feels pretty inadequate for a conflict of that scale.
My goal is to eventually have a page similar to List of military leaders in the American Revolutionary War that can be linked in the main article’s infobox.
 
I’ve got a first draft up in my sandbox that I haven't found time to edit, and if you’d be interested in editing or contributing, I’d be really grateful.
Thanks! Elina9k (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh, and btw, I saw on your userpage that you’re planning to work on something related to Swiss Mercenaries in the War of 1812."
Yes indeed I added the The Regiment de Meuron and De Watteville's Regiment which were Swiss mercenaries that fought for the British during the war of 1812, to the War of 1812 section on the List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries.
Let's continue the conversation on your talk page if you do not mind, but yes I think I can make some editions. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi, thanks for your work on splitting the List of wars involving the United States article—it was unusually long and definitely needed to be broken up."
You are welcome.
"Right now the template is fairly basic—it just links to the relevant articles—but I hope to eventually expand it to include all U.S. related conflicts and improve on the already-existing Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces"
Ooooh very ambitious, but at the same time a noble endeavor for sure. We editors of the the List of wars involving the United States try to be specific in our criteria as you may have read on the article as some people have different definitions of what these conflicts should entail. They are not necessarily to the breadth that I would like them to be as I am more inclusive and completionist, but the criteria represents several years of compromises on how the original list original came to the decision of including conflicts on the list. Happy to assist you with it if you desire, but I would want to know how specific your criteria would be so I can understand your vision for it and see what you would like included and left out. Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Right now the template is fairly basic—it just links to the relevant articles—but I hope to eventually expand it to include all U.S. related conflicts and improve on the already-existing Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces"
Also you may want to mention this also to the Talk:List of wars involving the United States. Some of the others editors may have input about it.
Oh and I noticed a small hanging (}}) in the intro. I was trying to get rid of it, but it is somehow linked to your template. Can you try to get rid of that on your end please and thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

[edit]

Hello History guy, I came here from your query at the Teahouse. Due to some technical issues I am unable to give my feedback there. Regarding your previous query, please copy this code which are in bold words { "archives":[ { "archive":"User talk: YourUsername/Archive%(counter)d", "algo":"old(7d)" } ], "maxArchiveSize":100000 } and paste here. May be it works. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry. I went to the page then went to create and added { "archives":[ { "archive":"User talk: YourUsername/Archive%(counter)d", "algo":"old(7d)" } ], "maxArchiveSize":100000 } ,but nothing happened. Sorry :( Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still noticed that you didn't copy the above code and paste in desired location. Fade258 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did, but I deleted it after it didn't work, but I can try adding it back. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redid it. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did your problem is solved? Please let me know. Fade258 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No :( Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Do you exactly want which is shown in my user talk page about archives? Please have a look at my user talk page. Fade258 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Also its cool you are from Nepal. But where is your archive section? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamwork Barnstar

[edit]

Thank you very much Historyguy1138 for the Barnstar! :) Dasomm (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. Thank you for your contributions. The barnstar was overdue honestly, I just didn't know how to do them at first. Thanks for your help on our List. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes....thank you very much. Moxy🍁 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You earned it to Moxy. We honestly could not have done what we did with these lists without your help and initial call for the splitting up. Now I think all the editors got what they think was best, and I think generally speaking its real nice for our readers. Though I am still working on improving it of course. (:
But for your part. Job well done. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Historyguy1138&oldid=1289420942"