User talk:Libertybison

Welcome!
Hello, Libertybison, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – Gilliam (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Silas Deane
As you can see I did some additions and rewording at Silas Deane. None of that is written in stone. I'd be glad to have your input and corrections.--John Foxe (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Bixby Letter
I think "said" is more neutral than "claimed." Is there a reason to question Robert Lincoln's word?--John Foxe (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of it that way, but now that you mention it I don't mind if it's changed from "claimed" to "said." As far as I know there's no reason to doubt Lincoln's honesty.--Libertybison (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Something's happened to the images in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it must have been a temporary problem. I can all the images again.--John Foxe (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

James Forten
Your edits were only undone because you edited it after IPs had vandalized the article. I wasn't able to revert selectively revert only the bad edits. Since you're autoconfirmed, you can edit the article now, even though it's semi-protected. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.– Gilliam (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bixby
Not sure if you saw my post at the Help Desk—things there tend to get swamped quickly—but the illegible phrase is "A Mother in Israel", a reference to Judges 5 (Deborah is the obvious example for "woman who made great sacrifices to rebuild her country and bring peace", and any reader in 19th-century Boston would have got the reference.) &#8209; Iridescent 15:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, . I actually thought the word most resembled "Israel" but didn't think that reading made sense. Libertybison (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bixby letter
The article Bixby letter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bixby letter for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My congratulations for pushing this article to GA status!--John Foxe (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

GA: Giosue Gallucci
Hi, I'm reviewing Giosue Gallucci for GA. I noticed that User:DonCalo has not edited in over a month and that you posted on his talkpage. Please let me know if you will be able to take care of this. Thanks! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 18:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , I originally contacted about making the article my first GA review, since I wanted to do my first review on a general topic that I already have some background knowledge/expertise in so I could better judge the reliability of sources used. I did a quick read over and noticed a few issues but hadn't gone over the whole article. I would be willing to take over for DonCalo, but I think that since you just started the review today we should give them at least a day or two to respond before that. Either way I'd still like to comment on the review page. Since you've gone ahead and started the review, I'm going to make a few fixes to what I noticed earlier. Libertybison (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, talk to you at the article talk page. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 21:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I want to thank you for helping improve Gallucci's article. Whether this passes the GA2 review or not, you work is greatly appreciated. I don't mind reviewing the article again if DonCalo or anyone wants to put this up again for GA in the future. I'll take it for review immediately after it gets put as a nomination. But let's wait about a week first to see if we hear back from him. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 16:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , it looks like a second opinion reviewer has looked over the article at the GA review. Libertybison (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Sebastiano DiGaetano
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Orders to take John Wilkes Booth alive
Hello,

You reverted my edit on Assassination of Abraham Lincoln,saying "There were no specific orders from Stanton to take Booth alive".

I do not believe this to be correct.

The Abraham Lincoln article mentions it ("Secretary of War Stanton had issued orders that Booth be taken alive, so Corbett was initially arrested for court martial") and I found a book reference mentioning the same thing: "Conger himself verified that the orders from Stanton had been to take Booth alive if possible". It seems to me that this is indeed what the orders were, and the initial arrest of Corbett was for this precise reason. You reverted the edit and it now says "Corbett was initially arrested for disobeying orders but was later released", so which orders exactly are these, if not "the orders from Stanton […] to take Booth alive"?

Thanks in advance. Nffwp (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit

The Boston Corbett article goes into more details about these orders:

Corbett claimed that he saw Booth aim his carbine, prompting him to shoot Booth with his Colt revolver despite Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton's orders that Booth be captured alive.

''Lt. Colonel Everton Conger initially thought Booth had shot himself. After realizing Booth had been shot by someone else, Conger and Lt. Doherty asked which officer had shot Booth. Corbett stepped forward and admitted he was the shooter. When asked why he had violated orders, Corbett replied, "Providence directed me".''

When questioned by Edwin Stanton about Booth's capture and shooting, both Doherty and Corbett agreed that Corbett had, in fact, disobeyed orders not to shoot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nffwp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , Sorry for the delay in reply. Here's the source cited in your book reference, William Reuter's 1958 book The King Can Do No Wrong pages 49-50. Reuter based his book's account on a 1916 interview of Conger which he rediscovered. Here's a newspaper story for more background if your interested. Here's a quote of the relevant part-
 * Conger had instructed his men to take Booth and Herold alive if possible in order for the fugitives to stand trial in Washington. Secretary Stanton had so instructed Conger at the start of the expedition.
 * So, if Conger's memory from half a century later is accurate, then I guess Stanton really could've given him those instructions. Either way, Lt. Col. Conger gave the order to the soldiers, including Corbett, who were duty bound to obey. However, now seeing what the original source said, I want to point out that the orders said "if possible". Meaning that the soldiers could fire in self-defense. Which is what Corbett claimed, if you believe him, in his testimony. Libertybison (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rejuvenate WikiProject Skepticism
Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

GA: Giosue Gallucci, again ...
Hi, I have nominated Giosue Gallucci for GA again. Since you did a great job reviewing it the last time, maybe you would be interested to look at it again, if you have the time. As you might remember, the main and only reason that it had not been promoted to GA at the second attempt was that one of the sources, Gangrule, was not considered a reliable source. Since then more reliable sources have been added, but more importantly Gangrule itself has been updated and reliable sources have been added to that site. Which makes me believe that after two extensive reviews, this time the review will take little time and that it might succeed. I have also notified the other GA2 reviewer ComputerJA. - DonCalo (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm a little busy to be too involved in Wikipedia as much now, so I might not be able to assist much in a new GA review at present. I agree with you about the improvements to Gangrule. I will write a longer more in-depth reply when I have a little more free time. Libertybison (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response and, indeed, there is a life outside Wikipedia. I would appreciate your assessment, but take your time. - DonCalo (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)