User talk:North Shoreman

Welcome...

Welcome!

Hello, North Shoreman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence

I have reported that single-purpose vandal to an admin for proper "disposal". Wahkeenah 14:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom (North Shoreman) 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

He be gone. Wahkeenah 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism warnings

Hello, fellow vandalism fighter! I've seen your Username turning up a lot recently on articles we both keep an eye on (such as Fugitive Slave Law of 1850). Seeing as you obviously care about vandalism, I'd like to suggest that when you've finished reverting the bad edit(s) it's really good to follow up by posting a notice or warning on the miscreant's talk page. I try to do this whenever possible, especially when the user has gone beyond a simple, relatively harmless "nonsense edit". There is a whole array of such warnings, which are tailored to the degree and type of vandalism. It's really important to put people on notice so they will think twice before doing further vandalism; and also, to document what they've done for WP admins, who can impose a block of their editing privileges. Regards, Cgingold 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the tip -- I am slowly figuring out the many nuances of wikipedia editing and the intricacies of the wikipedia bureaucracy. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW!

Just wanted to congratulate you on the marvelous work on Doughface! I just did a tiny polish, but that's a lovely, lovely article. (I guessing you wrote it in Microsoft Word and then pasted it in the 'pedia? The curly quotes in Word don't transfer all that well to Wikipedia, which can, in normal circumstances totally support curly quotes, but from Word they end up kind of freaky looking.) ANYWAY, great job, and I'm looking forward to any changes you might make to Wilmot Proviso--when I was a kid it was the last article in one volume of my encyclopedia, and I always thought it was a delightful, mellifluous-y name for a bit of legislation. jengod 03:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and the tip.Tom (North Shoreman) 12:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wilmot Proviso

I liked the Wilmot Proviso article and your civil war work. Email me at rjensen@uic.edu Rjensen 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Neo-Confederate

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to work with you to make this a good article. In the end, we both have the same goal: an excellent article. But to paraphrase WP:LIST, lists regarding people, especially in a negative view, should only have the highest standard of sources. I'm looking in to the sources you provided, but I'd rather discuss it on the talk page, and decide what to do there. --Milton 15:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC) ALSO: Kudos on your excellent contribution to other articles in a similar vein. --Milton 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuckahoe-Cohee

Just a note to thank you for your assistance in formating my article on Tuckahoe-Cohee. This has been my first and only effort so far on Wikipedia and I appreciate all the help I can get. I will continue to try to spread this article by up and down links to existing articles, because I think this rather antique concept of have-vs-havenot tuckahoe-vs-cohee cultural conflict can be useful as a paradigm in explaining some of American history up to and including the Civil War.

Lee Mathers Gwyncann 19:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Confederate government of Kentucky

I have made an attempt to address your comments regarding my FA nom of Confederate government of Kentucky. I hope you will eventually be able to support this article. Please let me know what other changes need to be made. Acdixon 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting your opinion of my latest attempt to garner your support for Confederate government of Kentucky's FA nomination. Sorry to be such a pest, but I find it likely that your vote may decide the consensus. Acdixon 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

See the article's talk page for continued discussion. Please do update the FA nom to show that we are still working on the article. Acdixon 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

North Shoreman, Acdixon and I would appreciate it if you could please take the time to review Confederate Government of Kentucky and update your comments regarding the FA nomination of the said article. We would like the article's nomination to reflect that changes have been made and what your current opinion on the article's nomination is. If there are questions or concerns, you can feel free to contact me or Acdixon. Thank you in advance for your timely response. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk 18:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Butt In Line

No problem, Sir. I'm sure it wasn't intended. Happy editing! – Watchtower Sentinel 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nullification

Sorry to see that you have become bogged down with your admirable Nullification Crisis page. I don't have much experience with that sort of thing but suspect the best thing is to cast it as a Wikipedia policy issue. If there is a book that says 1830 South Carolinian Nullifiers smoked marijuana, then it stays in the article. If there is no such book (as I suspect), it is excluded by Wikipedia policy of No Original Research and you can take firmer steps. Good luck! Hughespj 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

American School

I have provided some quotes you seemed to have missed when looking at Linds works. What do you say of page 24 of "Lincoln's"? Provide what on that page you consider, NOT, indicating the source is correct. I do not see it. --Northmeister 03:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If I came off wrong, I apologize. The contentious atmosphere at American School leads me to question those who pose. You have both books? - please respond to my questions to establish actual intellectual discussion on the books. --Northmeister 13:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I'm awarding you this RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your great contributions to protecting and reverting attacks of vandalism on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Burr and Secession

Wondering if you haf a problem with and deleted that entry on secession because it is NOT sourced? Or is there some other reason. It's an interesting factoid, but whether or not adds much to article is questionable. Carol Moore 23:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Emancipation Proclamation

I was about to warn you, then I realized what happened. I see you reverted the page to the right version! Cheers! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexican War

Please stop with your repeated vandalism attempts regarding the article about the Mexican War. If you have an issue with the content of the article please refer to the talk page.