User talk:GELongstreet

Archives

Archive 1

Thank you for the Award nomination. I have been working on getting the List of North Carolina militia units in the American Revolution approved as a Featured List. It is just about there. The process for getting approval has been a real learning experience how to improve a list or article. Have a happy new year. User:G._Moore talk Talk to G Moore 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You´re very welcome, I thought your work deserved that. Please continue with your history editing, and happy new year as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year! Dorromikhal (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I hope you´ll have the same. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration about this but I assure you that the ranks over there are wrong. I am Brazilian and I found this information wrong, so I edited the standard I found on Portuguese wikipedia. But I will find a way to include all the ranks there. A note: It is irrelevant to add the ranks of the Military Police and Fire Department, as it already has a page with this information and these are emergency services and are not part of the Armed Forces of Brazil. Augusto Mello (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)And it makes no sense to place the equivalent ranks with the NATO code since Brazil is not part of that organization and the ranks have different values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusto Mello (talk • contribs) 16:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article for both title them as reserve and ancillary forces of the army which make them belong there, that there are other pages with said information doesn´t make it invalid. And the NATO codes do make sense, they are of a comparative nature which is why "equivalent" is written there. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how is it going? Has editing gotten along lately? NatriumGedrogt (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I´m alright and corona-free (for now). Editing is going well and it has been a very very productive month here on WP with the March Madness event about to end in a few hours (lots of Dutch articles, too). Of course for me this means more tagging and editing than creating or writing articles (as usual), though today I began one of my rare articles (Gustav von Kessel). And how are you doing so far? ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just after corona reached the Netherlands, I and my family had all the light symptoms so I hope that I’m immune but I suspect it was something else. Editing is going well once again, after I installed IOS update 13.3 my IPad glitched out every time I tried to edit so is was less active for a few moths. That seems to mostly be resolved and in the meantime in had time to become active of Historum. I’ve read something about March Madness but don’t fully understand what it is, a bunch of routine maintenance and requested article creation it seems? Have a good day, NatriumGedrogt (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, yes. Reducing editing work that accumulated over time, identifying and rating articles and perhaps even creating requested stuff. Always fun and as everything here on wiki free to be done to a degree onseself wants or not. The next event will come, probably in half a year or something like that. Stay safe ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For scoring a very impressive 2,226 points in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For you many contributions to military history articles, to the Wikproject Military History and to coming in third in the 2020 March Madness backlog reduction edit-a-thon, I award you this barnstar. Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why twice? Because I missed the September 2019 edit-a-thon and just came across the page for it. So I add belated good work and congratulations for your work in that effort to my message. I looked at the project page a few times in Spring 2019, did not see a backlog reduction month and assumed there would not be another one until this Spring. I think I would have contributed at least a little work to the effort if I had not been oblivious. I will subscribe to the Bugle now rather than look at it sporadically, as I should have done some years ago! Donner60 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Donner. I appreciate it a lot, especially as I`m not that tireless. You and I still have work for a lifetime and beyond ...GELongstreet (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Bronze Wiki
		With an extremely impressive 2,226 points you have placed third in this year's the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness and I am pleased to award you the Bronze Wiki in recognition of this feat. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GELongstreet:—Thank you for looking at 18th Pennsylvania Cavalry Regiment. I would eventually like to upgrade it. It appears the article needs some improvement on references and citations for B-class. Anything in particular that was problematic? Once that is fixed, is there anything obvious that needs to be improved for GA? Thanks, TwoScars (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am very impressed by your work. The current rating is Bot-generated, and thus of course not perfect. I´m not sure what he considered missing a reference; maybe a section ending in just a note instead of a ref like with notes 4 and 9? I´ve done a few little tweaks but GA reviews are generally beyond my editing experience. However I think you already know the process, what could need improvement will likely be brought to light by the knowledgeable community once you request the respective review. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I put refs in front of notes 4 and 9. I'll let it sit for a while, then put it up for peer review while I'm working some other things. Maybe I can get it to GA by the end of the year. Cheers! TwoScars (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this little article. I put it up and then realized I did not have the umlaut in the title. Not good. I did not know how to fix that, so that was a big help. Also the article's talk page. I have made a few articles but I do not know how to go about creating a talk page. Done. You're doing good work. Thanks so much! Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You´re welcome. Looking on your contributions you have done both page moves and talk page templates before so you´ll do fine. So thanks for writing about military history and please continue with your editing ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did?! I really do not recall doing either. Certainly I could copy the article and create it again under a new title, but how would I move the article's edit history? I will take your word that I did, but someone must have talked me through it. Anyway, the important thing I wanted to convey is that I very much appreciate your help! Gunbirddriver (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can move an article (including talk page and everything) by using the "Move" button which should appear after hovering over the "More" button which should be diretly left of the search bar (more info at Wikipedia:Moving a page). As for the talk page template of WikiProject Military History you´ll find all info on Template:WikiProject Military history. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very good. Yes, that "Move" button feature sounds vaguely familiar. Okay, I am copying this stuff down. Thanks again. Gunbirddriver (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GELongstreet, it appears that the user Johnson05678, whom you reverted is back on a new account Johnvan123. Are you going to open a WP:SPI? --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for the revert. Just did so, right over here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And added the two impersonator socks as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another one ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• GELongstreet, thank you so much for reporting all the sock accounts. I'm appalled to see them using usernames to impersonate you and me. Its extremely annoying. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You´re welcome. Now we just have to hope the case soon gets a clerk to work on. ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You reverted one of my edits on the battle of Rorke's drift. I changed ranks of the officers as they where wrong. After editing this it was changed and i was accused of vandalism. i believe otherwise and i would say it wasn't vandalism and i would like it changed back. I am appreciate your job as a editor for Wikipedia and i would like this to be flattened out.

Thank you, 19IQ (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 19IQ. I´m glad your edits aren´t meant as vandalism. However that still leaves them to be the alternative: factually wrong. Both men served as Lieutenants at the time of the battle, the ranks you added where the highest-achieved ranks during their respective careers, not reached until years later. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 19IQ (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GELongstreet - Thank you for adding the project and task forces for List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of the Wilderness. If I wanted to get it to AL, is there anything that quickly stands out as something that needs to be done to it? TwoScars (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You´re welcome; and not even the slightest clue. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for pointing out the family connection. Valetude (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You´re welcome. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not residing in the US so I guess I´m out. Meanwhile limiting your survey to the US will accordingly limit the results in regards to wikipedia as it is a thoroughly international community. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GE Longstreet, Thank you for the spelling corrections to the SS and Police Leader article. Some were due to my carelessness and some were incorrect in my source document. Greatly appreciated. Regards. Historybuff0105 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You´re welcome. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GELongstreet:, In Sri Lanka Major Generals are called generals, also lieutenant generals are called generals as Sri Lanka was a British colony. Please explain it further, why have you reverted my edits?

Please, see Category:Pakistani generals and Category:Indian generals where all persons in these categories are not full generals (four star generals/the rank above lieutenant general). MN Namiki (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained that to you very easily on your talkpage. That those subordinate categories have not been made for all countries doesn´t negate this. However I´ll not fight you over this as I don´t have the time for that. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I´m a little surprised at your course; re-reverting, commenting and immediately putting it to AN and then to the project. ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partly spurred on by the above conversation, I'm thinking about splitting out Category:British Army generals. I haven't done anything with categories before, but assume it would just be a case of creating Category:British Army lieutenant generals and Category:British Army major generals, and moving some over to Category:British Army brigadiers (it's currently just for post-1928 brigadiers, but this could be expanded). What do you think? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically that indeed is it. Just lots of work with so many articles. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work, but probably worth it..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia, and am focusing on revamping a lot of the OOBs for 1864 and 1865. I wondered if it is kosher to include unit strengths (with sources cited) in the OOBs for regiments, brigades, and divisions? I've included some for the Cedar Creek, Wilderness, New Market, and Piedmont Confederate OOBs, though a user not part of the ACW task force keeps trying to undo them. ThoughtfulPug (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} [reply]

Donner60 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you switched in "Wikiproject Military History |Biography" the taskforce "South-East Asia" to "Napoleonic" I have no objection to adding the Napoleonic label, but why deleting the "South-East Asia" label? Undoubtedly Ver Huell played a role in Indonesian military history, even if he wasn't born there, and even if it was a "nefarious" role. Ereunetes (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical task forces in biography pages are usually tied to the present or historically/geographically corresponding nations the respective person served, and aren't included for simply being the locations said person served at for a time. As in his case Dutch automatically adding the European task force, not the East-Asian one. I am not hell-bent to leave it out though, colonial ties make things complicated. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please put it back in then. The Dutch colonial wars in present-day Indonesia are an important subject for the military history of both countries. I think colonial ties make it not only complicated but interesting. I also noticed that this historical era (the early days of the Indies, not as a colony of the VOC, but of the Dutch state (Batavian Republic and Kingdom of the Netherlands) is rather underdeveloped in the English Wikipedia, so there is more to come. Ereunetes (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the assessment of the Alexandre Charles Joseph Ghislain d'Aubremé article? Specifically what is wrong with the references and the lede/"scope"? Ereunetes (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the delayed answer, wasn't much around over the last weeks. Remember that the assessment was automatically done by a bot so I can only guess. Not sure about the scope at all, though I'd probably try to reform the lead section into several sentences. As for the missing references I assume this could be triggered by the notes that don't contain own references. As said it is a bot assessment, which still are a bit rough. If you write a new (military history) article, or considerably improve/expand an existing one, and would like an assessment by a human being you can always request that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had't even noticed that the lede was one long sentence :-) I have now cut the sentence in three. As to the notes without references: two of them are comments with no need for references. The last one contains three references. That leaves only the note about William I being the Governor-General of the Austrian Netherlands at the time he appointed d'Aubreme military governor of Mons. But the wikilinks should cover that (see for instance William I of the Netherlands#Return), and Sovereign Principality of the United Netherlands#Reunification). I think you should update your bot, because it has become something like a blunt instrument. Please try it again to see if the change in the lede makes a difference. Ereunetes (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the operation or coding of the bot. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for invariably improving content, and more importantly, sourcing on enwiki's ACW content. You're a credit to the site, and we're lucky to have you. jengod (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and thanks for the praise. I'm not very good with sourcing or new sites but I help when getting motivated by having e.g. your new articles to work on. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spacini: Thanks for catching my mistake on the edit to List of American Civil War generals (Union). I did indeed delete the wrong Ramsey. You did some work on this list article in the past. I am removing brevet generals who were not full, substantive grade generals and whose names are on the brevet general list. You were doing this in 2016. I just happened by the talk pages tonight. I noticed some comments from Spacini and you from 2016. I have been replying to some old and new posts on the page and planned to write a note to let you know I was following up as one of those replies.

The main list was written (not by me) before the brevet general list. The stated reason for including some prominent brevet generals from the outset was the supposition that the brevet generals list did not exist and might not be written. (I wrote the initial brevet general list about 10 years ago.) I just rewrote the introduction to the substantive grade list to remove the statement about including brevet generals and to indicate that they belong on another list. I have even found some "might have beens" in the list. These are mostly the never confirmed posthumous appointments but there are at least a couple of very odd cases. My default, like yours, is to include them on one of the lists, at least if the officers are listed by the Official Memorandum, Warner or Eicher. Explanatory footnotes or comments in the last box on the lines for each general should cover the reasons for including any apparent exceptions to the full commissioning process.

The number of brevet or might have been entries has continued to increase so some time needs to be taken to clean up the article. I won't ask you to watch the article to a greater extent than you already may do. I will let you know when I am finished so that you can correct or let me know of any mistakes or any changes that should be discussed because I think someone knowledgeable should check on this. I think not all of it may be straightforward.

I also need to rewrite and probably prune the introductory sections to the brevet general list and add a few citations - a project for later.

Glad to see you still working on ACW articles. Thanks again. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished deleting the brevet generals from this list, checking that they are listed on the brevet generals list and in one or two instances transferring the listing. I have kept, with notes, the officers who were not confirmed but are listed as generals in various sources and are not on the brevet list. I will be working on the text in the brevet list article as I have time. Thanks for looking at these. Please let me know if you see something that needs to be changed. Donner60 (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome GELongstreet! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:51, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to GELongstreet for collecting more than 10 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's FEB24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing 14,300 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isaac F. Shepard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GELongstreet, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetins, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at León, Guanajuato, Local government section, adding article to the "See also" tag.

Help to de-orphan articles. 1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog. 2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles. » De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adopting an orphan article. Always helpful, and always more of them in need. ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you around and writing about a little known but notable soldier. Please add a few sentences to the lead (introduction) with a few key points from the article. Assessors started being strict on the need for more than a sentence in the lead for a B class assessment earlier this year. Perhaps it has been that way and I did not notice it. I think that the requirement is technically correct. I also have begun to note that a longer lead is required regardless of the thoroughness of the content of the full article. I think it should not be too hard to pick out a few main points from an article with many details, so authors have been doing that when requested. I seem to be doing most of the B assessments recently but someone else could jump in. I'll leave the request as is and get back to it after you have made a few additions. Please let me know when that is done. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seldomly writing new articles but am always there. Just elongated the lead section as you requested. ...GELongstreet (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rated it B class. And this:

I think you would do a great job as a coordinator for the military history project. You have been an outstanding reviewer for many years. Reviewing for B class and answering questions on the project talk page are among the several tasks charged to the coordinators. I hesitated to mention this to you because you have just added new page reviewer to your list and thought you might be too busy. Most coordinators contribute intermittently, not daily or at a certain level. Any help is valuable and appreciated.

I was added as a coordinator nominee a few days after the stated nomination deadline last year when Peacemaker67 asked me to nominate myself. All nominations are self-nominations with only support votes allowed. So there is no negative feedback and no reason to think any minimum number of support votes is needed since there is not a "full slate" of nominees.

At this time, there are only seven nominees; ten or eleven, counting the lead coordinator is the desirable number.

If you would consider joining on, I will notify Peacemaker67 (who recruited me) and Hawkeye7, lead coordinator last year and almost certain to be again (if back from travel) that you are interested. Or you can contact them yourself and tell them that I suggested you add your nomination if they approve. I am sure they will invite you to add your nomination to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/September 2024 or reply to me and I will send the reply along. At least one of them might contact you directly, which I would encourage them to do, regardless of whether you or I let them know you are interested.

I might be so bold as to suggest that you just add your name and mention that I let you know a late nomination would be welcomed since a larger number of nominations would usually be expected.

If this is not a good time, please consider it for the future. The term runs from the last day of September for a year. Occasionally, when the number has been low, a volunteer is "co-opted" in the middle of a term by the lead coordinator so that may be possible if you wish to give it a try before this term is finished. Or keep it in mind for next September.

I will be offline from September 18 or 19 until September 22 or 23.

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very flattering, thanks for that, but I'm afraid you're mixing me up with somebody else in regards to the outstanding reviewing. Like before I think neither am I competent enough for the job nor am I looking for that challenge. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wounded Knee Massacre § Massacre? Mass Shooting? - what to state in the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, May you tell me how can i publish the following article: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Rbmn/Arthur_Constantin_KREBS_(1850-1935):_Military_engineer,_Automotive_industrialist,_Great_projects_manager Thanks a lot Rbmn (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you marked Virginia Rodrigues (actress) as reviewed, but from what I can see, the article fails to meet WP:GNG. There are no multiple reliable sources cited with in-depth coverage of the subject. As per WP:ICTFSOURCES, The Times of India is not considered a reliable source. Additionally, the subject has not played significant roles in multiple notable films. She had a notable role in Mahira (film), but in her other films, she was only a supporting actress so fails WP:NACTOR. Could you please let me know how you believe she meets the notability guidelines? GrabUp - Talk 15:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to reply. The simple answer is that while I looked to verify the roles I did not look into their respective placing in regards to NACTOR. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to GELongstreet for accumulating at least 50 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello general. Thought I might as well go to the original source--did I use "enfilade fire" correctly here? ;) If that's not right what other noun or verb would summarize succinctly? TIA for humoring me. jengod (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. While there was indeed enfilading fire at and from various points, and extremely effective, it is only a part of what the Confederate assault faced. I for one wouldn't use it as a short overall description. Within the current structure of the sentence I'd maybe opt less for the direction of fire and more for the composition; something like "artillery and infantry fire", "artillery and small-arms fire" or "long-range artillery, shrapnel and musket fire". Meanwhile the previous sentence ("... discouraged Lee from ordering the assault...") might use a notion of the ordered assault having to be over nearly a mile of open ground against an entrenched enemy (clarifying the opposition). Just an opinion of course. ...GELongstreet (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the best. Updated with your suggestions and credited you in the edit summary. Thank you so much. jengod (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]