User talk:Saintonge235

Welcome!

Hello, Saintonge235, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

37th Congress article has to show men there.
Some would count Texas seceded at the popular referendum, February 23. Nevertheless, in an Article about the 37th Congress, an account should be made of the men certified, seated and attending.

The detail is further down in the article, Texas Senators, Louis T. Wigfall (D), served until March 23, 1861, vacant thereafter. But John Hemphill (senator) (D), served to July 11, 1861, until expelled by Congress. His seat went vacant thereafter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply
The portion of the article I corrected didn't say 'There was no one from Texas participating in 37th Congress when Ft. Sumter was fired upon.' It said that five states, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas were drawn "into the confederacy with their more Southern sisters". That's quite true of VA, NC, TN, and AR, but Texas had formally joined the Confederate States of America on March 2nd, 1861. It was over a month later that Sumter was fired upon. The attack on Ft. Sumter didn't draw Texas into anything.

Possibly the original author meant something like 'The attack on Ft. Sumter caused Senators and Representatives from five Southern states to withdraw from participation in the 37th Congress.' But regardless of what was meant, what was actually written was just wrong about Texas.Saintonge235 (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The cite was from the History of the Senate webpage, quoting the retired Secretary of the Senate memoirs. Sumter is fired on in April, Texas' most esteemed jurist, John Hemphill, withdraws only on expulsion in July. Makes me want to find out his rationale. He, at least, apparently believed he was representing Texas in some way. While you are addressing the facts on the ground in Texas at the time, my guess is there was a mindset in the Senate and with its Secretary, that as long as Mr. Hemphill was present in the US Senate each morning, Texas was present in the US in some way. I would speculate there was an "inside the beltway" mentality in the Congress before there was a beltway. Towards concensus, I agree to your expunging reference to Texas in the narrative. It is well enough to have the dates of service in the Senate roll. Thanks for the good eye to chronology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

2nd Reply
And thank you for the complement.

I agree, the Texans that stayed in Washington after March 2nd probably felt that they were representing Texas in some way. By staying they could look after the interests of Texas and its people, even if they personally believed that Texas was no longer part of the United States. If they agreed with the North that secession was unconstitutional, then they were doing the job they were elected to do. And there are other points of view they may have had.

I just felt that the article as originally written conveyed the impression, in that paragraph, that Texas hadn't seceded yet, but decided to secede after Ft. Sumter was fired upon, when Lincoln called for militia to suppress the rebellion.

Of course, the article was clearer down below, but not everyone reads everything. I think it's better to avoid creating possibilities for misunderstanding for those just skimming, or only reading part of an article.

In short, a minor correction, but one I think worth making.Saintonge235 (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Compromise of 1850
The discussion that you started has gotten rolling. Care to come back and add more? 98.82.193.135 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! undefined tausif  13:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  23:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

November 2012
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Watch on the Rhine (novel). Thank you.  Sandstein  18:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You've been reverted by two editors now--this last edit summary is correct. Please don't continue and edit-war. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Watch on the Rhine (novel). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein   16:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Watch on the Rhine (novel)
If you do not self-revert your edit here and take your concern to the article talk page I will have to ask for sanctions at the edit warring notice board.  Tide  rolls  16:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing War
I have attempted to work towards a consensus. When "Sanderstein" said that Wikipedia was not a good enough source for the fact that Dietmar Dath is a Marxist, I set about finding references to establish that fact. When "Sanderstein" said that Dath's Marxism was of dubious relevance, I replied that he the quotations concentrated on the novel's politics, and that in turn made the political opinions of the reviewers relevant.

Wikipedia claims that content must be neutral and verifiable. I believe it is neutral and relvant to describe Dath as a Marxist when he writes about politics, just as it would be neutral to describe him as an sf author when he writes the obituary of another sf author. If "Sanderstein" thinks he that I'm wrong, he could try putting forth an argument. Instead, he deletes material he doesn't like. Saintonge235 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. There is a discussion on the article talk page regarding your edits. You are the one that is reverting without discussion.  Tide  rolls  18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  Tide  rolls  18:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Saintonge, you have been edit-warring in Watch on the Rhine (novel) since November 16, on and off. Technically, it's not a violation of WP:3RR as you have not reverted more than three times in a 24-hour period. Yet, you can still be blocked for edit-warring, irrespective of whether you have violated 3RR itself. It appears that you wish to insert content into the article, even though more than one editor has disagreed with your additions. It is gratifying to see that you have finally commented on the article talk page, but I believe that Tide rolls's request that you self-revert your last edit as a sign of good faith and then continue to discuss the content issues on the talk page is a reasonable one. If you fail to do that, you run the risk of being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Watch on the Rhine (novel). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hampton Roads Conference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William C. Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hatcher Scale concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hatcher Scale, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Hatcher Scale


Hello Saintonge235. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Hatcher Scale.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Haymarket affair
Please stop adding books to "Further reading" that are already mentioned above in the "Works cited" section. Continuing to edit-war may result in your being blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 04:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see those books in the "works cited" list. I'll refrain from adding them, then.Saintonge235 (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Your recent editing history at Anita Sarkeesian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dreadstar ☥   13:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC) _________________________ Dreadstar, you ask me to "consider using the talk page" to resolve my differences with others over my edit to the Anita Sarkeesian page. I left a message on the talk page explaining why I was reverting the edit that removed my previous edit. It seems to have been deleted too. Just how am I to resolve a difference with those who won't talk with me.

And concerning the "three edits" rule, I note that every time I have edited this post, my contribution has been removed by a different person. Again, how am I to resolve differences with people who won't discuss the issue with me?Saintonge235 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find an edit to Talk:Anita Sarkeesian in your contributions. Can you provide a diff?  Tide  rolls  13:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

__________________________

Tide Rolls, I can't find it either. Maybe it didn't post for some reason. My edits were being deleted because I had allegedly used an unreliable source. I pointed out that Larry Corriea, my source on Utah gun law, is a certified firearms instructor for Utah. He had posted just what the UoU needed to do to legally exclude guns from Sarkeesian's talk. That is, set up a secured area with safe lockup for firearms outside it, metal detectors on the entrances, and guards. UoU could have done this, but didn't. I also noted that immediately after the claim that Sarkeesian cancelled because guns couldn't be excluded there was a sentence that cited the Washinton Post, saying Sarkeesian cancelled because UoU refused to put metal detectors on the entrances, which confirms Corriea's point.

While we're on the subject of reliable sources: Obviously, a newspaper editorial is a reliable source for the official position of the newspaper. A newspaper editorial or news story isn't necessarily a reliable source for the requirements of the law. Just look at the corrections columns most run. And citing multiple newspapers doesn't mean much, as so many news outlets quite understandably copy material from each other. So I find it rather odd that anonymous writings by individuals of unknown qualifications counts as a 'reliable' source because a newspaper printed it, but the statements of a man whose former profession required him to know the relevant Utah laws is rejected as unreliable. I strongly suspect bias, as Corriea's right-wing political views are anathama to many. But the question of what Utah's law requires and allows is factual, not political.Saintonge235 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the optimum venue for a discussion regrading article content.  Tide  rolls  01:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)←

Book of the Garand
Greetings. I'm trying to track down anyone who might have a copy of Hatcher's Book of the Garand. I see you added a reference to it and so I thought you might have access to it. I'm trying to verify or improve a big chunk of text added to Pedersen rifle back in 2007. The nearest library to me with a copy is hundreds of miles away, so any help would be appreciated. Rezin (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I got my copy through interlibrary loan. I not that Amazon has it, http://www.amazon.com/Book-Garand-Julian-S-Hatcher/dp/1934044253/ and http://www.amazon.com/Book-Garand-Julian-S-Hatcher/dp/1614273359/ for around $10.00 plus shipping.Saintonge235 (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that info. I don't have free ILL at my library and hope to avoid spending money to verify one old article. (If I was going to buy one of Hatcher's books I'd want to get his Notebook - it sounds like a classic.) There's another active editor who's cited the Garand book, so I'll check with him. Also, free free to make any improvements to Pedersen rifle - the complaint is that it goes into unencyclopedic speculation. If it's anything you know about you could probably do better with it than me. Rezin (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you send me the information you need verified, I can get the book out again and look it up. I'll have to look at the Pedersen rifle material in a day or so. Busy trying to make repairs to an appliance.Saintonge235 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks! There's absolutely no rush. The material in question is the big addition made in this edit: . While verification is important (and maybe making sure it isn't just copied), it'd be nice to maybe find a way to make the text more concise. Right now it devotes a lot of space to "legacy" and other side issues. It's a tricky topic - while it was perhaps an influential design, and was built by a famous designer, it was also a unsuccessful prototype with only a dozen or so rifles built. Maybe the information on field strippig is overlong too. You're an experienced editor - see what you think. FYI, I'm just pursuing this because a "suggestbot" put it on a lit of articles needing attention. User:Rezin/SuggestBot So this is just part of general project improvement. Thanks again for helping out. Rezin (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've requested the book from interlibrary loan. When it get here, I'll look at the material. "The Book of the Garand" has a fair amount of interesting stuff on the Pedersen, and the reasons it was rejected, but I wouldn't want to depend on my memory for the article.
 * Thanks! If I may, I'll leave it to you to improve the article however you see fit. It's a fascinating topic, but the article itself may not be written in the usual encyclopedic style. I'll move on to the next item on my list, but feel free to pull me back in if you need any help. Rezin (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kamala Harris
Hello Saintonge235, not sure what happened here where you added 247kb of text to Talk:Kamala Harris, but I assume it was a mistake, and reverted your edit. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I see what happened, now. You have been an infrequent visitor to Wikipedia, lately, and two edits prior to the one where you added 247kb to the page today, you made this edit also at Talk:Kamala Harris on August 15th at 09:13. At that point in time, the Talk:Kamala Harris page was in revision 973092037, and was 258,633 bytes long.  After that edit (and one more unrelated edit to Transistor) you went away for a month, coming back today, with the intention of making a small edit to Talk:Kamala Harris. When you started, the Talk:Kamala Harris page was 14,734 bytes.  You found that one of the tabs in your browser still contained the page, left over from your August edit. Either it was already in edit mode, or else it was open to an old revision of that page (url with oldid param). You edited the page, adding a few bytes, and saved it.  But, this saved the August 15th version of the page that was still in your browser, back when it was 258kb long, along with the small changes you intended to make to it. If you believe that this is not what happened, please explain as best you can, what you think occurred; if there is something else going on, we need to address it.
 * Your change has been reverted, so the page is back to 14kb again. This means the change you intended to make today is gone, and you will have to reinsert it, if you still wish for it to be visible on the page.  Mathglot (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 16:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grenade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shrapnel. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Quantum mechanics
I moved your question on Talk:Quantum mechanics to the bottom because it was inserted in a stale thread above an already-completed GA nomination. I have also answered it. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)