User talk:Barrychoward

Thank you for your contributions of late
I noticed your edit to Aztec Club of 1847 today. Thank you. This message is to provide useful feedback to help tune your contributions. Please accept it in the positive spirit in which it's intended.

One challenge for connected contributors is how to bring the knowledge inherent in their "connectedness" to bear in a positive way. The contributions you've performed today are very useful and helpful, because you are advancing pagespace, making connections to the organization you represent. Your edit to Bloodlines of Salem was helpful, but was not optimal; by merely leaving a note at the top of the page saying the org was closed (with no sourcing), your edit left the impression a page vandal might leave. For defunct organizations which are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, we would not normally remove the page, but instead edit the page so as to correctly indicate to the reader the org's historical nature. A source for closure would be helpful here, and (because of your relative closeness to the subject matter) you might actually know where that notice was disclosed publicly, if such it was.

I'm not suggesting you halt, slow down or moderate your edits. Quite the contrary. Please edit boldly! There is a connected editor (User:EMarkel-JoyetAPS) who has declared they will only perform a few sorts of edits: adding statements to biography articles that the page subject is or was a member of the American Philosophical Society and details relevant to that election. She might have completed this by now (there are a finite number of elected members). Her declaration was helpful to those who "watchlist" pages we've worked on or are concerned about. By seeing her COI declaration and her statement of intent, she became a true wiki-ally. I hope wikipedians grow to feel you are such an ally. Now that all the low hanging fruit of articles have been created, Wikipedia is now in an era of page improvement focus. Specialized knowledge is now even more helpful to us. So thank you for your disclosure and your contributions.

My normal editing field is 19th century American biography (and I created the Aztec Club article), so we're liable to run into each other at some point. If I can be of any service, please consider me a wiki-ally. Contact me if you need guidance or assistance of any kind. BusterD (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much, Buster. I am only beginning to learn the ropes of wikipedia, and am trying to be circumspect about the rules, and so forth.  I was not sure how that statement on the Salem Bloodlines page would work, so I sort of thought someone might need to adjust it, or delete it altogether.  I really appreciate you educating me, and the friendly spirit in which you did it.  Thank you, and understood on future process. Barrychoward (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that I edited your page just now by adding colon before your reply. This indents the comment so it has a clear appearance of being connected to, but no part of, my original comment. By adding a second colon, we get further indentation, for my comment. Editing Wikipedia is incredibly simple once you get the hang of it. I wanted to say Wikipedia has established a project called WikiProject: Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums to assist in helping connected professionals (even volunteer professionals like yourself; virtually all wikipedians are volunteers) make even better contributions. HSC might not align ideally with GLAM, but your org seems to share similar lofty principles like those orgs. A look there might help you understand the rare value of connectedness. I've recently started working with a GLAM project with Pritzker Military Museum and Library in Chicago. I help that project build articles on notable subjects which fall into their research field, the citizen soldier. Anyway, don't want to talk your ear off. Just want to let you know that you are valued and have something unique to offer to Wikipedia. Like any good soccer player, just make space around you and communicate well with your teammates. BusterD (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, Buster. I so appreciate your input and guidance.Barrychoward (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The colons don't seem to be working for me.Barrychoward (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because I foolishly did not clarify: add one or more additional colons to indent further. We even have a template "outdent" which bring the conversation back to left side, when comment threads have extended right far past reasonableness. You're doing fine. Let me know if while you're editing you would like someone know look over your shoulder. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

A request directly in your wheelhouse
Hey Barry! I hope you are settling in and finding usefulness in Wikipedia. We appreciate you. I am looking for reliable independent sources to document current membership numbers of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Your society's website does not offer such details but I thought you'd be a good person to ask about sources. Can you recommend a source or more for such queries? I am specifically NOT asking for your input on the discussion, just drawing on your content knowledge to find where you might look. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Buster! It's great to hear from you, and I have settled in a bit more...though there is still so much to learn.  With regard to UDC and SCV, I don't belong to those (as you probably surmised on my membership list)...but many in our community do/did.  I think they are bleeding members given the current evolution within American society, and so not sure if they will weather the storm.  As to their membership numbers, I really have no idea.  I do not know any of the leaders, and I imagine they would not just give that information out over the phone.  That said....they have both been large groups in years past; a few thousand each, I think....but that's a rough estimate.  Sorry I'm not more helpful. Barry2601:154:C480:FDF0:A1CF:5D3F:8B90:17B7 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not a member of any such orgs myself but qualify for several (including SCV and SUVCW). I did drive volunteer-based organizations for several years, so I'm empathetic to your situation (and theirs). I was hoping you were aware of a directory or a resource, not a contact. Are there any reliable places where such an org might list themselves? Self-report? Org periodicals? I've seen non-profit guidebooks to help me decide on donations. I'm sure the trend line would be most instructive. In any case be well. Glad we're both alive. BusterD (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Evolving...I did the colons this time. I took a bit of time to do some due diligence for you and hunt for the 990's for these two groups; which are often very telling and filled with accurate data.  When I pulled up the 990's they were filed individually, State by State, rather than by a national entity, so far as I could tell.  Beyond that, I dug around in the websites themselves for the national entity (as I imagine you would have too), and as expected there is no directory or an avenue to locate one.  Then I vetted the books distributors....and had a bit more success.  You can purchase the org directories online at abebooks.com.  https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30895755153&searchurl=ds%3D20%26kn%3DDirectory%2B%2522Sons%2Bof%2BConfederate%2BVeterans%2522%26sortby%3D17&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title1

Hope that is helpful, Buster2601:154:C480:FDF0:A1CF:5D3F:8B90:17B7 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is is enormously helpful, Barry. Thank you for looking for me. I was not aware scv directories were even available for purchase. BusterD (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At your suggestion, I pulled up some 990s myself and I see what you mean about filings, especially in UDC. For encyclopedic purposes, primary documents must be used with great caution; I couldn't cite them but they do tell a story. For example, I might roughly extrapolate SCV membership from example 990s, based on reported costs. This would be a poor strategy of course. Such estimates could not be considered a WP:Routine calculation but instead WP:Original synthesis. Releasing financial numbers directly (while they may be accurate and public) might be considered WP:Undue, and an inappropriate use of primary documents. On Wikipedia, I might use 990s, directories, and other public primary documents for verification, but I'm wise to stick towards reliable secondary sources independent of the subject for citation. Thank you for engaging on this. I'll keep hunting around middle Tennessee newspapers and magazines, around where the SCV filings originate. National headquarters occasionally draw local press. BusterD (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)