User talk:Magicpiano/Archive 2

Inline citation

If you have a paragraph that is based on one source, is it sufficient to give one citation at the end of the paragraph, or should there be more frequent citations? Jonyungk (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb (which has been adequate for GA reviews so far), is:

• every paragraph must be cited
• every direct quote must be cited (no later than the end of the sentence)
• if a single whole paragraph covers more than 3 pages of source material, use more citations (this makes later editing easier)
• cite any controversial or "unusual" facts directly

Best, Magic♪piano 17:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

List of stations on the MBTA subway

Thank you so much for your input on List of stations on the MBTA subway. I have been searching out imput for quite some time. Ill work on what you stated should be done. Im not great at the whole footnote thing (as you probably guessed) so thats for helping with that. If you want to help out any more that would be great!--Found5dollar (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit break

Salut Magicpiano! Whenever you feel like going on a copyedit break, there is this a translation of the Hydro-Québec article waiting for you... :-) The credit for writing and translating the article goes to User:Bouchecl.

On a different subject, I'll soon be sending you an e-mail message with the link to my Web photo album showing images from my Balkanic vacation. -- Mathieugp (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice pictures! I'll try to look at Hydro-Québec soon. Magic♪piano 23:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am sure User:Bouchecl says thanks as well. :-) -- Mathieugp (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Review request

I know you're probably pretty busy working on your own FAC, but if you've got a spare moment or two, I'd like to get a fresh set of eyes on the FAC for the Yukon Quest. I'm trying to find someone to do a quick copy edit to fulfill another reviewer's request, but I can understand if you can't do that. At the very least, I'd like to get the opinion of someone who isn't familiar with the subject and can give me comments on readability. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, probably not before tomorrow though. Thanks for your comments on Ticonderoga 1759, I'll be looking at those too. Magic♪piano 12:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for copy editing the article. I guess it really did need it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Polish culture during World War II

Thank you for copyediting this article. I've renominated it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish culture during World War II/archive3. Feel free to comment, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Samuel de Champlain

I hate these edit conflicts--I was just busy restoring the article to the version right after it. Keep up the good work, Drmies (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That article is a bit problematic because there is an IP editor (66... I think) adding actual content (if in bad English) to it. I may yet restore his work, once I catch up on other stuff. Magic♪piano 01:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Cologne War

You reviewed this for GA last summer. I thought you might be interested in taking a look at it now.... Cologne War Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cologne War, which you reviewed at GA, is a Featured Article Candidate. Would you take a look and offer comments on the review page? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It was my intention to do so (I like the progress you've made on it), I just haven't gotten around to it. Magic♪piano 16:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Champlain's title

Since you work on his article once in a while, I thought you might want to know the result of my own "research" concerning the various titles that governors of New France have received.

Btw, I wish you a late Mery Christmas and a Happy New Year. May 2010 be a good one for you, your family & friends. :-)

-- Mathieugp (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cornwallis in Ireland

Hi, great article congrats! I took out line about rebellion aftermath as the accepted date for final vanquishing of rebel remnants is 1804 with the death of James Corocoran. Wasn't sure how to incorporate so hence deletion. All the best. --Ponox (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Austrian and Spanish Succession maps, and a question

Hello. Sorry about the somewhat delay, but I have now uploaded attempts to correct the slight errors on the two maps you pinpointed for me. I am not entirely sure that I understood exactly what you meant in all the cases, but tried as best I could. Have I not fixed the errors entirely correct, please don't hesitate to notify me back again. North American geography/history has never been my best subject, so I very much appreciate your helpful comment.

I have not, unfortunately, been very succesful in my attempts to work with SVG yet, so I must for now decline to make such before and after maps as you suggested. Regards, -TheG (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe I should have fixed the further errors now, thanks again for descriptively pointing them out. Regardless, you know where to find me! -TheG (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Grand Pre

With refence to your comment "(twasn't nova scotia (or Great Britain) then". Although it not a British colony in 1704 it as a matter of fact was known to the British as Nova and had been so since Sir William Alexander possessed the colony in the early 17th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffTsquared (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This is technically correct, but I don't think the inhabitants of Grand Pre thought they lived in NS. Magic♪piano 00:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cornwallis in Ireland review

Hi, I've started reviewing Cornwallis in Ireland, which you nominated, and I just left an initial question on the review page. Would you care to have a look? Lampman (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've left some further comments, please have a look. Lampman (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

co-authors in bibliographies

In response to your suggestion I have redone the bibliography in the Adrian Boult article in cite book format, omitting the author's name. I have a slight problem, that Boult's co-author in one of them doesn't now show up even though I have added his details. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. - Tim riley (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you so much for your help on this. - Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hohlenhoh

This user is stalking me, as can be seen on the Cornwallis in Ireland page. Can you please intervene? He's reverting perfectly fair edits all over the place.

I don't know; most of your edits appear reasonable to me, but there may also be political bias involved. It would help if you always did a few things: include edit summaries explaining your edits, and sign your talk page contributions. (I had to look in the edit history to find out who made the above edit.) If you want to avoid the added scrutiny and suspicion that many editors give anonymous edits, sign up for an account. If an editor's behavior is problematic, report him at WP:ANI; this will bring an administrator's attention. Magic♪piano 12:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A relatively minor issue, and I am in no doubt that it came about unintentionally, but can you please revisit this edit. The implication is that my preceding edits were only retrospectively signed. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why you're concerned. It's the anon editor's talk page, not yours. If I was addressing you, I'd have indented it, not given a new heading. I'll add a disclaimer anyway... Magic♪piano 14:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I understand now. I've taken care of it. Magic♪piano 15:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP

I may report the IP accusing me of stalking to ANI. This IP appears to be using at least four different accounts, one of which was blocked for NPA just two days ago [[1]]. Hohenloh ⁺ 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason why I'm trying to stay out of this. I have at best limited means (or interest) to judge anyone's motives or claims. Magic♪piano 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this user harasses me like this. He doesn't respond to my talk page comments. He's a parody of Wikipedia's very worst qualities, citing policies, demanding 'civility' whilst simultaneously presenting NONE WHATSOEVER. He's a disgrace, and wikipedia is a disgrace for tolerating this power. I would like to add that I'm thoroughly disillusioned with this website, most of the articles on 18th and 19th century Ireland are horrifically biased and protected by a small cadre of Republicans intent on squashing dissent, much like this individual above. Frankly I'm utterly appalled by this website and all it intends to accomplish, and I think it will lead to the degeneration of the intellect in mankind generally. I'm sorry for cluttering your talk page, but this user simply refuses to interact with me, is utterly intolerable as a person, in fact, he has failed as a person and resembles little better than the son of Satan in his interactions with human beings. All men of good standing should shun him, for being such an incivil wretch. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Book structure

Thanks for giving these books a much-needed chapter structure and create a few of your own. However, their structure are different than articles (see Help:Books/for experts#Saving books for details), so I though I'd let you know.

Also consider linking you books by placing {{Wikipedia-Books}} in the See also section of relevant articles, or in navboxes, or whatever makes sense to you, otherwise no one will know they exist. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Books

I noticed you created a few books, such as Book:Fort Ticonderoga and Book:New York and New Jersey campaign. However, currently, no one knows they exists ([2], [3]), so no one will read them. There's basically two standard ways to de-orphan them.

• By placing {{Wikipedia-Books|Fort Ticonderoga}} in the relevant articles (in this case this book is relevant to all articles IMO). This would produce a box similar to the one in the top-right corner.
• By editing a relevant template (see {{Call of Duty series}} for an example)

If you have any questions, just ask me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Pedro Vilarroig

Thankyou very much. Best regards.(talk)12:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive4

I responded to your comments and suggestions at this FAC. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Road to the Multiverse/archive1

Hello, I noticed that some kind of image review was necessary in order to pass an article, if it gets to that point, and I was wondering if you could perform an image review, in order to prevent any future quarrels about the images being used in the article. Thanks. Gage (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Falmouth Painted Map image

Howdy!

I'm one of the maintainers of the Maine Memory Network website. I see that in March of 2009, you seem to have uploaded an image from MMN's collection to the Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BurnedFalmouthPaintedMap1775.png (The item's MMN page, as noted in its Commons description, is at http://www.mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=16128.)

However, as far as I know, the MMN website itself serves only scaled-down versions of its archived images, stamped with watermarks. So, while I realize it's well over a year ago at this point, may I ask if you recall how you obtained this high-resolution unmarked image? If you in fact went so far as to purchase the high-resolution image from the site prior to uploading it, I'd love to know that as well.

I ask because this is the first time someone at the Maine Historical Society noticed an MMN image appearing on Wikipedia, and we're curious how it got there. Please feel free to respond to me here, or via email (jmac@jmac.org). Thank you very much! jmac (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly got it from your website, probably not long before uploading it to Commons. The exact means would obviously depend on how it was presented on your site at the time. You presently offer the use of Zoomify, which presents an unmarked image, and is probably how I acquired it. There are tools available for recreating high resolution images from Zoomify tiles, because the tile URLs are predictable (or accessible in the Zoomify metadata) and the algorithm for reconstruction is uncomplicated. (If this is of concern to you, then you should watermark your Zoomify data.) Magic♪piano 03:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That information is quite helpful. I didn't know that about Zoomify, but am unsurprised to learn it. MMN will look into whether and how we should modify our image-sharing policies, knowing this.

An aside: I invite you to send me an email (jmac@jmac.org) so that I might introduce you to one of MMN's directors for further conversation. There's some general curiosity about the use of MMN's images on sites like Wikipedia, and as you're clearly both an experienced Wikipedia editor and an American history aficionado, yours would be a valuable point of view to help us learn more. jmac (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Jumonville Glen

It seems you are quite indifferent to historical accuracy! All the soldiers involved were born in Canada. What do you call the colonists during the American Revolution, British as well, so we have British versus British. Also take a look at the Quebec Act of 1774, King George III refers to his Canadian subjects throughout the Act, not his French subjects.--Varing (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't read my edit summary. You altered words in a significant number of quotations, where the word used was e.g. "French", and not "French-Canadian" or "Canadien". Rather than tediously fix the many places you broke this, I reverted all of your changes. If the correctness of terminology is important to you, you should understand the importance of accurate quotation as well. As I said in the edit summary, feel free to make edits that don't violate the integrity of quoted material. Magic♪piano 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Necessity

I received your message and will procede with what you asked for, especially work by W. J. Eccles, France in America, printed by Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited. Besides the two battles involving the two brothers, Joseph Coulon de Villiers and Louis Coulons de Villiers, it is a known fact that there after, with France sending troops to help the Canadians, that both Canadian miliamen and French soldiers were present in subsequent battles.--Varing (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Varing's terminology might be anachronistic (i.e. "French-Canadian" may not have been contemporary usage), but it is not necessarily incorrect. However, it may not be supported by the sources currently used in the article's he's touched -- see my question at Talk:Battle of Fort Necessity. (He's also wrong on his accusation of historical inaccuracy -- see my talk page.) Magic♪piano 21:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You obviously did not take time to read the Quebec Act of 1774, there is no anachronism there. It was the arrival of the Loyalists into Canada after 1791, that labeled Canadiens Frenchmen or French-Canadian.--Varing (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, throughout the war, Montcalm made a difference between Canadiens and his French soldiers. He did not trust the Canadien militiamen and quarrelled with Canadian born Marquis de Vaudreuil-Cavagnal.--Varing (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course Montcalm differentiated them, for the same reason British officers did: they were organized in their own units, had different terms of service, and were culturally different from the metropolitan troops (a problem on both sides). However, this is beside the point: what matters is what the sources say. Please continue this discussion at Talk:Battle of Fort Necessity. Magic♪piano 22:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you change Jumonville Glen before concensus was made?

I am furious, go ahead and block me, I will hit you with all computers available. You are a stubborn man!--Varing (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There are no citations to the George Washington article and you know it!!! You use that to intimidate me for the Jumonville Glen and Fort Necessity articles.--Varing (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Where was your Civility when you edited Jumonville Glen before the concensus? Removing something I don't like is my freedom on my site! Don't be so despicable!--Varing (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I explained what I was doing. You certainly have the right to do what you want on your talk page -- I was just pointing out that deleting warnings wasn't going to prevent others from discovering they had been issued. Magic♪piano 03:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

More MagicPiano insults

If I am such a sloppy scholar, why would you dispute the 6,236 soldiers that Amherst had massed to disloged the French and Canadians from Forts Carillon and St. Frédéric according to Eccles top of page 198? Wasn't it you who goes according to what other authors have written? You might want to take a look at what I wrote about the Carillon Flag in your forced discussion page! When one translates, we make mistakes that do not necessarily point to Franglais. I have begun correcting them. You protect Fort Necessity so well, but ready to trash Fort Carillon at every turn! If you want one article, than rename it Fort Carillon. You must have missed me to come back and quarrel with me again. I did not start, you did!--Varing (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Eccles' statement (or your paraphrasal of it) is at best incomplete, since it only includes regulars; I did not actually verify it. Amherst's force, inclusive of militia, was over 11,000; see Battle of Ticonderoga (1759). But you were egregiously wrong that Eccles stated the fort was blown up; he wrote no such thing. (I personally think that forking a redirect to a feature article is fairly provocative, by the way. You should consider asking, in appropriate wikiproject fora, whether such moves are a good idea.) Magic♪piano 13:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Lake Champlain front Jeffrey Amherst, the commander in chief of the British forces in America, had massed an army of 6,236 regulars and provincials to dislodge the French from their forts. It took him a month to get his army in motion. Quote and unquote, but it's okay, it's no big deal to me. As for the redirect, it had been previously done by smack without any discussion. I however do accept your help on the Carillon Flag article in English. I have been to Fort Ticonderoga three times and Fort Saint Frédéric once because there is not much to see except the ruins of Fort Crown Point. If they had rebuilt Fort Saint Frédéric, it would have been a major tourist attraction, since it is so unique and beautiful to look at (The model). Fort Duquesne and Fort Pitt have two separate articles, but now Fort Duquesne no longer has a model picture. I wonder who was responsible for it's destruction there, huh Mr. Nice Guy?--Varing (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, if that is what Eccles says, he is wrong; the number is at best only for regulars, and sources that deal with Amherst's campaign in detail (rather than Eccles' more general overview) should confirm this; see the sources for the 1759 action. The fact that Eccles is wrong on a relatively minor point like this is not surprising -- I catch historians in little things like this all the time. (I've also been to Ticonderoga and Crown Point -- Fort Saint Frédéric must have been a real showpiece in its day.)

Forts Pitt and Duquesne were actually separate structures: see Fort Pitt (Pennsylvania). Carillon and Ticonderoga are the different names for the same structure. Magic♪piano 14:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Kingsford reprints Amherst's troop return, which clearly shows why Eccles is wrong. Magic♪piano 14:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fort Carillon

I understand what you are saying. The problem is that Fort Carillon is so highly valued to French speaking Canadians, that putting it under the heading Fort Ticonderoga does not render it it's full credit. It would be nice to have Fort Carillon as the article heading and Ticonderoga under it, but many would cry foul because it is a US national monument and it is important to US history. It's like Waterloo is important for the British in their victory over Napoleon. Let's just say that the Belgium government changed the name to Van Loops! Does this imply that Waterloo and the Battle of Waterloo all have to be redirected to the Van Loops article. The British would cry foul and would definitely want to preserve the original name. Unless you had Fort Ticonderoga (Fort Carillon) as a heading, thereby giving both priority. But to have people wanting to know about Fort Carillon redirected to Fort Ticonderoga does not resolve the issue. We make Fort Ticonderoga bigger than life and dwarf Fort Carillon which should in all due respect be more important than the former. It was bad enough that Canadians lost to the British without belittling or minimizing the greatest moment in their history. I still need to find time for that Carillon flag article, but if you have looked at it, there is so much to translate, and these days, my job is taking a lot of my time. But I will do it as soon as I have the opportunity. Thanks! Have a nice evening. Oh by the way, the Bruins have now lost two games to the Canadiens, if you are a Bruins fan. The company I use to work for in Saugas and Peabody had a lodge at the Fleet Center. I went a few times to the games with customers. It's hard for me to see the Bruins lose, but anyways, may the best team win! Cheers!--Varing (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Stettin is redirected but Konigsberg is not in English. In French it is! Does this mean that Konigsberg should be redirected? What about Byzantine and Constantinople to Istanbul? You see, you cannot erase history. If you look at it from a geographic and cultural standpoint, okay, go right ahead. But history is history, and you cannot erase it! Take the article Moon landing, I firmly believe they did not have the capabilities to go and that they never went, yet an article exists on this fallacy! When Von Braun writes in his memoires that it would take 3 Saturn rockets the height of the Empire State building to go and come and back to get there, how can he be wrong? It takes two meters of protection to cross the Van Allen radiation belt. The space module had nothing but a thin golden aluminum foil as protection. Those who filmed the landing in a London studio, were all killed in so-called accidents. I could go on and on, but the point is, Stettin, Konigsberg, Fort Carillon really existed, and it's not too much to have two separate articles. You should see all the garbage articles that some people put out. I real disgrace. You and I obviously like history. I believe in it's true value. If I want to know about Konigsberg, I really don't care about knowing about Kaliningrad. Cheers!--Varing (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe the moon landings are hoaxes, you need to look at these pictures (no, I'm not going to debate this). The problem with communities like Stettin and Gdansk is that you cannot have separate articles about them because their histories are too complex -- you really need to have a single article on them. As far as Kaliningrad, there is a perfectly good article on Königsberg, which is basically the history of the first 700 years of the city's (completely German) history. The Kaliningrad article does a disservice in not even summarizing that history, instead pointing to the other article. (Articles should stand reasonably well on their own.) As already discussed, the fort does not have an extensive French history, most of which is germane to the British history that followed. All of this would be to a fairly large part duplicated, and to what end? To satisfy your feelings? (Other people's feelings on the subject will require citation to reliable sources, please.) Magic♪piano 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

They're trying to prove the lunar landings, but they couldn't even do it right. The shadow of what is right of the lunar module is opposite the other shadows of the lunar mounds. Why couldn't any of the astronauts put their hand on the Bible and swear that they had been to the moon? Why did they stop going to the moon when the Russians had the technology to know that they were in low gravitational orbit around the earth? Luckily, the Russians were smart enough not to play this Cold War game. As for Fort Carillon, it is not an emotional trip, I believe in it. If it is to be merged, then Fort Ticonderoga-Fort Carillon need to share the same title of the article.--Varing (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the English version of WP. British and English-speaking North Americans know the fort as Ticonderoga. If the French WP wants to title the article 'Fort Carillon', I have no problem with that. WCCasey (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consultation Request

Hello. As a senior editor, I wonder if you might be able to contribute to the discussion page for the wiki article Battle at St. Croix. There only exists British accounts of this battle with Indians and no Indian accounts. A person is suggesting this reflects bias in the account and that this bias needs to be reflected in the heading of the battle (i.e., use the heading "British account of the battle" rather than simply "the battle"). I am suggesting this might go into a footnote, however, I really don't known what the wiki policy is re: this issue. If you could help, that would be great.--Hantsheroes (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. As always, your response is very helpful.--Hantsheroes (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fort Ticonderoga

You had mentioned to fork it out! I was doing just that! What belongs to Fort Carillon from 1755 to 1759, and what belongs to Fort Ticonderoga 1759 onwards.--Mont-Joli (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

A fork usually consists of copying an existing article and then making changes to the copy. It does not involve destroying the original. The material you are removing from the Ticonderoga article is clearly germane to its subject. Magic♪piano 14:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, understood! Sorry about that!--Mont-Joli (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)