User talk:Tfhentz

11th Virginia Regiment

The 11th Virginia Regt. wasn't organized until February 1777 and didn't join the Main Army at Morristown until early April 1777. Therefore, it did not participate in the NYC Campaign and the battles of Trenton and Princeton. The 11th Virginia Regt. is not the same as Morgan’s Provisional Rifle Corps – they are two separate, regiment-sized Continental Army units (one permanent, one provisional) that were simultaneously commanded by Col. Daniel Morgan. Lt. Col. Christian Febiger, the 11th Virginia’s second in command, ran the 11th VA while Morgan was temporarily attached to the Provisional Rifle Corps from June 1777 to July 1778. Capt. Gabriel Long, originally of the Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment, was also attached to the Provisional Rifle Corps in June 1777, where he remained until his resignation in May 1779.

Heitman's book, which contains some erroneous data on Tannehill, was not used as a source for this article. Therefore, I deleted it from the "Sources" list.

Maryland and Virginia Regiment
Thanks for the quick response. The link to the sources guideline is actually put there by the reviewing template I use - it's just part of the template and not anything specific that I was pointing you towards. I have no problem with your use of primary sources in this article - you don't seem to be abusing them, so unless someone else complains I wouldn't worry about it too much. Hope this clears things up. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving Page
You should be able to move the page to the correct title by clicking on the "move" option at the top of the page. It's in the same line as the buttons to go to the talk page, to watchlist the article, etc. It should be the second button from the right hand side. Click on this, and you will go through a series of steps that will allow you to move the article to the title you want. Let me know if this doesn't work or if you have further questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Maryland and Virginia Regiment
The article is looking good, and I can see you have been working hard to polish it up. I am, however, confused as to why you would like me to nominate the article for peer review. I have no knowledge of this regiment other that what I learned as I was reading it for the GA review, and I would be in a poor position to respond to most comments that would come up during a peer review.

My suggestion would be for you to nominate the article yourself, as you are probably the editor in the best position to deal with comments at this point. You can either ask for a Military-specific peer review by following the directions at WikiProject Military history/Review, or you can ask for a general PR at Peer review. It can take a few days for you to get comments at either of these locations. Let me know if you have any further questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you're trying to add it under the "class=" part of the project banner. Instead, I'm pretty sure that it should go under its own section of the banner.  So, after the last thing in the banner before the closing "}}", put "|A-Class=current".  Try this and see how it works (it should, but I'm not positive), then follow the rest of the directions for the A-class review setup.  Let me know if you have any more questions.

Btw, the basis of the name "Peer review", is that other editors (your peers) are reviewing the article for you. Often they will not actually make changes to the article themselves (other than perhaps a light copyedit), but will instead suggest changes on the review page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, do not worry about your changes to File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg, it is already there. The problem is likely that your browser is still showing you the cached image. Just append a "?action=purge" to the web address of the article and go to that address. For your convenience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_and_Virginia_Rifle_Regiment?action=purge), this will show you the latest changes to an article. Regarding the File History, I am not an administrator on either site, so I cannot help, but I see no problems with leaving things as is (the color-corrected image is the current version). Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the ISBN number, you have not added it so why should it appear? Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion: it might be helpful and clearer if the References were split and categorized (see Mary Shelley and Toa Payoh ritual murders). This can help readers to judge the amount of primary and secondary sources used at first glance. Furthermore, you might want to use later editions/publications of the books. I found the 2007 edition of Dandridge's book on Google books, which can be of help for others to verify the contents. All books and periodicals should have their ISBN or ISSN listed.
 * First, thanks for all your efforts with this article. I went ahead and categorized all the References, with the primary references separated into two categories. Virtually all the books I cite are the only editions published. In a few cases where a later printing/edition is available, I have a digital link to it. A good example: I added the link to the later printing of Dandridge's book (thanks for catching that). I've added all ISBN's for books that were published after 1970 when the ISBN system was adopted (International Standard Book Number). In a few instances of later printings of pre-1970 books, I also added their ISBN's. Many of the citations are too old to have ISBN's, and no later printings of the specific volumes exist. I added the ISSN's to the two periodicals I cite.

Is it possible to source more information cited from primary sources to secondary sources? Jappalang (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought a lot about this issue of primary sources when constructing the article. In many cases, such as the National Archives microfilm documents, this won't be possible; there are no printed versions. Many of the George Washington letters have been printed, but I strongly believe that being able to view the originals from the Library of Congress website (which are the copies from which all the published transcriptions were made!) is superior and brings the overall history into sharper focus for the reader. Moreover, I've encountered some transcription errors in these printed versions. One of the article reviewers stated that he/she was a "hair concerned" about all the primary sources. The synthesis and interpretation of the unit history is documented in the secondary source Hentz (2006) and to a much lesser extent in Wright (1983), also a secondary source. The primary sources I cite support only objective data (orders, numbers of troops, dates, actions detailed by the participants, etc.), and virtually all these data, with the same primary sources, are presented in Hentz (2006). Like I said, I thought it would be much more interesting to the reader to see the primary sources, as opposed to my repeatedly citing Hentz (2006) for each statement in this Wikipedia article. The linked primary sources also make the veracity of the various statements more apparent to the readers.

Regarding Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment multi-column Notes
Currently, IE will not support multiple columns (Template:Reflist. Jappalang (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Personal communication as a Wiki reference
I wasn't able to find anything explicitly dealing with personal communication in the behemoth that is MOS either, but unfortunately, I don't believe it is acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. I think personal communication falls under No original research, since presumably the communication has not been published. Village pump (policy) may be a good place to ask your query to get some more opinions. Best, Budding Journalist 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adamson Tannehill
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Adamson Tannehill you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking on this task! Tfhentz (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Adamson Tannehill
The article Adamson Tannehill you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Adamson Tannehill for comments about the article, and Talk:Adamson Tannehill/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Adamson Tannehill
Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back

 * You are most kind. Thank you for your gentle advice throughout the process. Cheers, Tfhentz (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 2023 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) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

TFA?
I'm thinking of running Adamson Tannehill at TFA on January 16; does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Dank, Sure; that would be great. I'm pleased you found the article worthy! Tfhentz (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. A blurb will show up soon-ish at WT:Featured article candidates/Adamson Tannehill/archive1; feel free to comment or edit it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Biography of Adamson Tannehill (1750-1820), military officer, politician, civic leader, and farmer. Tannehill had a significant role in the American Revolution as captain and commander of the longest serving rifle regiment of the war. He was an early leading citizen of Pittsburgh and a distinguished Pennsylvania politician who held several local, state, and national appointed and elected offices, notably including one term as a Democratic-Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1813 to 1815 and president of the Pittsburgh branch of the Bank of the United States. He also served on the founding boards of civic and state organizations. He was active in the Pennsylvania state militia, eventually rising to the rank of major general in 1811. Moreover, Tannehill served as brigadier general of United States Volunteers in the War of 1812." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2905 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)