Thanks for the response. I've no idea why the Reply option was greyed out - I've seen that sometimes when the message you want to reply to is unsigned, but mine wasn't. Have a look at Nick Moyes' answer to you as well. Cheers --ColinFine (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin. God keep you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyguy1138, are you sure you didn't have any open reply windows somewhere else on the same page? This happens to me all the time - I start writing a reply, decide not to post it, and navigate somewhere else, but then when I load the page again later, it's saved my half-finished reply and automatically opens it. Then I don't notice that's happened and wonder why I can't click any other reply buttons. -- asilvering (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. But maybe. I will keep an eye on that from now on. Good point. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Muddy Flat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JSFarman (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Historyguy1138! I came across your profile from all your contributions to the list of wars involving the United States. I wanted to see if you would be interested in helping out on a sister-article draft I have been working on since November 2024: Draft:Attacks on the United States, which is listing/summarizing every attack that occurred against the United States' history. Both articles have similar topics, so you might be interested and I wanted to let you know about it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Weather Writer. Yes I think I think someone mentioned this project to me once. I am interested, but I would like some details.

I forget who it was I talked to, but isn't it pretty going to be a pretty broad. And it will include specific attacks within wars. For example it would include skirmishes in battles such as the Confederate attack at Devil's Den and Pickett's Charge? What are the parameters that we would consider an attack for this project and how specific are we being?

As I understand it there has been some sort of merge in this article and the person whom I talked to said we make break this article by century due to the broadness of the subject.

Thanks. (:

Side note. Have you enjoyed my edits? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the "scope" of the article is mentioned as the second sentence in the lead: "Attacks against the United States include invasions, military offensives, raids, bombardment and airstrikes on it's military, terrorist bombings and shootings, and any other deliberate act of violence against the United States government or military."

So actually, Pickett's Charge is already listed in the draft under Draft:List of attacks on the United States#Gettysburg campaign, since the Gettysburg campaign itself is one-big invasion of the Union/United States. For the very few sort of campaign/invasions of the US itself, my vision was to have the section be the invasion itself and all the subsequent events during the invasion (for example in the Gettysburg campaign, that includes the battle of Gettysburg and Pickett's Charge) are just summarized in the header.

Besides the initial stages of WW2 when the Japanese invaded several US territories, every attack against the US is typically some stand-alone event (like the 2012 Benghazi attack), where they are still generally apart of some war, just not campaign of multiple-events/multiple-attacks against the U.S.

For the most part, I think roughly 95% of the attacks are already listed as a header in the articles (note, Draft:Attacks on the United States (1900–1945) & Draft:Attacks on the United States (2000–present) are split out articles due to page size requirements). To really see the scope, check out the events already summarize (1776 to roughly 1945). I just really finished up through 1945 last night, so 1946 to 2025 is still being entirely worked on and will still look "bad" or maybe even "scopeless". Pre-1945 is a good representation of the articles though. Hopefully that helps explain the article scope some! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we including Rebellions lie the Whiskey rebellion, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party insurgency, the Business Plot and the Bonus Army, the Panama Riots of 1964, the great railroad strike of 1877, the coal wars, or the various slave rebellions in the U.S., the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the Wounded Knee Occupation, the Battle of Athens (1946), the Ruby Ridge standoff, or the Waco siege, the Oyster wars, the Earp Vendetta Ride, the California Genocide, or the Rum War, the 2015 San Bernardino attack, or the Timber Rebellion?

What about gang wars like the Tong Wars or the Castellammarese War.

What about the Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871 or other massacres.

What about wars from countries that later joined the U.S. like the Hawaiian Rebellions, the unification of Hawaii, or the Texas Revolution.

Again some of these are massacres, riots, assassinations, gang wars, protests, I know you have covered some of these, but there are nuisances with a lot of these particular examples. Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some or a lot of those can probably be added. Reliable sources (RS) will typically be clear if it is an attack specifically against the US government or US military. For example, the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike is clearly not at the US government/military and no RS will say that it is an attack against the US. While, Business Plot is specifically towards the US government as an entity, so RS will confirm it is an attack against the US. In short: Include if against the US as an entity and exclude if it is not against the US. Always rely on RS and anything can be added in good faith (WP:BOLD). Chances are, if an event is not an attack against the US, someone will challenge it and/or a talk page discussion can occur.

The various discussions that have occurred at Talk:List of wars involving the United States show it may not be a perfect scope, but for the most part, it is defined well enough, so any of these borderline-style events may just need a discussion to say "Yes, Include" or "No, Exclude". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm gotcha. Let me ask you this are you the main creator or brain behind these articles? I think if I work on these I will primarily focus on attacks and rebellions against the U.S.A., but for things that maybe do not exactly have a "perfect scope" I will consult with you. What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good! Also, the previous "version" for this type of article was this former mainspace article, which was deleted and merged into this new draft-in-progress article. For all intents and purposes, Wikipedia has never had a list of times the US was attacked. So, this is sort of creating the article entirely from scratch. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. Just to let you know this will probably be very sporadic with me. I take the editing seriously, but this is a hobby so bear with me. Looking forward to working with you and thank you for the consideration. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Historyguy1138,

Thank you for creating List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Many uncited potentially controversial statements, particularly in the "result" column.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|RachelTensions}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

RachelTensions (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RachelTensions: Thanks for the comments on how I can improve the lists.

Please keep in mind that the original list namely (List of wars involving the United States) has been around for at least over a decade since I started editing. All I did was (with mutual agreement with the majority of the editorss on this page was split the page into 3, create a linking page (with criteria), and completely created the (List of wars involving the 13 Colonies and the Illinois and Ohio Countries) on my own. And the citation problem has been an issue before long before my time.

That being said I am happy to help research and put citations in each section gradually. However what I will likely do is incrementally go in order on each list and add citations as I go, as I have been with the 13 colonies list.

• List of wars involving the 13 Colonies and the Illinois and Ohio Countries
• List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries
• List of wars involving the United States from the 20th century
• List of wars involving the United States from the 21st century

Keep in mind though that for some of these wars, (especially the newer ones) some of the editors change those a lot and debate each other over those issues.

As far as controversial can you be a bit more specific as to which particular outcomes are controversial (and as long as I am not walking into a minefield with some editors), I will give those ones some deeper attention.

Thanks so much. And thank you for the sign reply tip. Still learning and I didn't know that one yet. You rock. :D

~~~~ Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions: Hi Rachel please advice. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Greenwald, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:CNMall41 I appreciate your help. So exited it got published. (:

I am going to work on make it a non orphan article real soon, I was just waiting to publish it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on splitting the List of wars involving the United States article—it was unusually long and definitely needed to be broken up.

I noticed that in one of the new articles you wrote:

This list is part of a larger series of list articles that cover the various wars if the United States from its colonial roots to the present.

This is exactly the kind of situation the Series template is intended for, and it seems like you were aiming to replicate that format, so I went ahead and created a template for it.

Right now the template is fairly basic—it just links to the relevant articles—but I hope to eventually expand it to include all U.S. related conflicts and improve on the already-existing Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces

Thanks again for your contributions! Elina9k (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, I saw on your userpage that you’re planning to work on something related to Swiss Mercenaries in the War of 1812.

 

I’ve actually been working on creating a List of leaders involved in the War of 1812. The current War of 1812 infobox only includes about four commanders, which is par for all military conflict infoboxes, but still feels pretty inadequate for a conflict of that scale.

My goal is to eventually have a page similar to List of military leaders in the American Revolutionary War that can be linked in the main article’s infobox.

 

I’ve got a first draft up in my sandbox that I haven't found time to edit, and if you’d be interested in editing or contributing, I’d be really grateful.

Thanks! Elina9k (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, and btw, I saw on your userpage that you’re planning to work on something related to Swiss Mercenaries in the War of 1812."

Yes indeed I added the The Regiment de Meuron and De Watteville's Regiment which were Swiss mercenaries that fought for the British during the war of 1812, to the War of 1812 section on the List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Let's continue the conversation on your talk page if you do not mind, but yes I think I can make some editions. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi, thanks for your work on splitting the List of wars involving the United States article—it was unusually long and definitely needed to be broken up."

You are welcome.

"Right now the template is fairly basic—it just links to the relevant articles—but I hope to eventually expand it to include all U.S. related conflicts and improve on the already-existing Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces"

Ooooh very ambitious, but at the same time a noble endeavor for sure. We editors of the the List of wars involving the United States try to be specific in our criteria as you may have read on the article as some people have different definitions of what these conflicts should entail. They are not necessarily to the breadth that I would like them to be as I am more inclusive and completionist, but the criteria represents several years of compromises on how the original list original came to the decision of including conflicts on the list. Happy to assist you with it if you desire, but I would want to know how specific your criteria would be so I can understand your vision for it and see what you would like included and left out. Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Right now the template is fairly basic—it just links to the relevant articles—but I hope to eventually expand it to include all U.S. related conflicts and improve on the already-existing Template:Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces"

Also you may want to mention this also to the Talk:List of wars involving the United States. Some of the others editors may have input about it.

Oh and I noticed a small hanging (}}) in the intro. I was trying to get rid of it, but it is somehow linked to your template. Can you try to get rid of that on your end please and thank you. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello History guy, I came here from your query at the Teahouse. Due to some technical issues I am unable to give my feedback there. Regarding your previous query, please copy this code which are in bold words { "archives":[ { "archive":"User talk: YourUsername/Archive%(counter)d", "algo":"old(7d)" } ], "maxArchiveSize":100000 } and paste here. May be it works. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry. I went to the page then went to create and added { "archives":[ { "archive":"User talk: YourUsername/Archive%(counter)d", "algo":"old(7d)" } ], "maxArchiveSize":100000 } ,but nothing happened. Sorry :( Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still noticed that you didn't copy the above code and paste in desired location. Fade258 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I deleted it after it didn't work, but I can try adding it back. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redid it. Historyguy1138 (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did your problem is solved? Please let me know. Fade258 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No :( Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Do you exactly want which is shown in my user talk page about archives? Please have a look at my user talk page. Fade258 (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Also its cool you are from Nepal. But where is your archive section? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Are you also from Nepal? Just above the tips of the day. You can try Cluebot III or Lowercase sigmabot III. May be it works. Copy the one of the above bots script in your user talk page. May be it works. Fade258 (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, Are you also from Nepal?" I can't claim that honor know, but I have studied a bit about your country and find it both interesting and fascinating. (:

" Just above the tips of the day. You can try Cluebot III or Lowercase sigmabot III. May be it works."

I will try that soon, hopefully it works. Historyguy1138 (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Historyguy1138 for the Barnstar! :) Dasomm (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. Thank you for your contributions. The barnstar was overdue honestly, I just didn't know how to do them at first. Thanks for your help on our List. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes....thank you very much. Moxy🍁 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it to Moxy. We honestly could not have done what we did with these lists without your help and initial call for the splitting up. Now I think all the editors got what they think was best, and I think generally speaking its real nice for our readers. Though I am still working on improving it of course. (:

But for your part. Job well done. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historyguy1138. Thank you for your work on List of colonial American wars. Another editor, Noleander, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

This article is OK, however it does not conform to the Wikipedia accessibility policy... that policy discourages using color coding to represent facts. Becauae visually impaired people may not be able to see the colors, and would not be able to fully understand the article. Suggest implementing an alternative technique to represent the function that the colors are currently performing..

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Noleander}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Noleander (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noleander:

Hi Noleander so I think I found the policy you are talking about. Please correct me if I am wrong, if there is another one somewhere else.

It seems to say:

" Articles (and other pages) that use color should keep accessibility in mind, as follows:

• Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information. Always provide an alternative method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." Here is the link.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#:~:text=Avoid using color as the,will not receive that information.

To my knowledge this is not the sole means of conveying information that we have as our cells are also labeled with the victor/lose conditions which I would imagine would constitute an alternative method of conveying information. Perhaps though you are saying that I should create a 3rd alternative method in which case I should also add some type of symbols perhaps. What would you suggest?

One last thing to keep in mind in terms of context, is that this is a part of a larger series index of articles.

• List of wars involving the United States — also covers the various criteria for inclusions in these lists
• List of wars involving the United States from the 18th and 19th centuries
• List of wars involving the United States from the 20th century
• List of wars involving the United States from the 21st century

These above lists were recently broken up by a group that created the original article over 10 years ago in which several editors have been or are involved. This colonial article is just 1-5 in total, but is newer to the original lists history in that we did not originally focus on the colonial wars before 1776. But perhaps it would be better to contact all the list editors on the talk pages since this is a wider series.

Also this is not the only list that does this besides the U.S. one. The Australians do it too in List of wars involving Australia, List of wars involving New Zealand, and List of wars involving France to name a few. You may want to talk these as well. And these are all groups that have been here for a bit if I understand correctly.

Thank you. (; Historyguy1138 (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historyguy1138, I was just wondering, why you didn't add Cresap's War to the list of colonial American wars? Thanks. Dasomm (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the (see also) section, but I could not see anything that suggested that it was a military conflict that saw anything more than a few injuries. Not sure if we can call this one a war/conflict in the traditional sense.

But I am open to suggestions. Why do you think we should add it? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should add it, Knowles Daunt died

In 1734, during one of the many failed attempts to capture Cresap, a vigilante posse attacked his cabin and in the skirmish he shot and killed a Pennsylvanian named Knowles Daunt.

From basic research, I see that this war created a climate of fear and disruption for settlers, led to property damage, and caused displacement... Dasomm (talk) 10:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, give me a bit and I will add it soon. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dasomm (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to split the colonial wars up by century too? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking about it, thanks! Dasomm (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool give me a bit of time. But I can do that. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

User:Historyguy1138/sandbox11 Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Invasion of Acadia (1654), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I super appreciate it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and No problem! I had one other suggestion, try signing up for the Wikipedia Library. With that you can get access to Newspapers.com, which will let you find many sources so history articles. Best wishes, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Friendship Barnstar
		Thank you for the nice teamwork last few months! The Lists of wars involving the United States wouldn't look so good without our good cooperation. Dasomm (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks brother. I super appreciate it. You do an amazing job as well. Your 21st century content and ability to make the layout succinct and presentable is amazing. Honestly I wish we could do the same for the other countries lists, but I am super happy we have done it with this one. Thank a million. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Historyguy1138! While researching the July 2025 admin election candidates, I found that you posed questions to many of the candidates on their talk pages. While this is permitted as far as I know, I wanted to clarify that a discussion phase of posing questions to the candidates is already scheduled for July 18–22. Waiting until then would be better to ensure that other voters see your questions and the candidates' responses to them on the designated subpage. Happy editing! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ViridianPenguin🐧.

You are absolutely right. Please forgive me. This was simply a matter of being bold without being aware of the rules, as this is my first election that I have been active in on Wikipedia. Thank you for assuming good faith. And I am excited to patriciate with you in the upcoming elections. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you posted a request related to the Chinese military on Thehistorianisaac's talk page. Thehistorianisaac was recently topic banned from Chinese military, broadly construed. I'm sure you did know about the TBAN beforehand, but I strongly suggest that you remove your request before Thehistorianisaac or anyone else responds to it. As an alternative venue, you might try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Chinese military history task force. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh I apologize I did not know. He actually was a part of the task force.

May I ask what did he do?

I will remove the edit yes thank you.

How long does a topic ban hold for? Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooh he was fast and already mentioned me. He claims he just wants to send me books on that subject. Would that be ok or would you prefer not? I do not wish to step on anyone's toes. Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't know much about why he was Tbanned, as I wasn't part of that discussion and only found out because I watch his talk page. You can read the full discussion that led to it here. As for the length of the Tban, community-imposed bans (including Tbans) are usually indefinite and last until they are successfully appealed.

As for sending books on the subject, I think it's safe to assume it would be a Tban violation. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh I see. I will refrain in that case. Please forgive me. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. I've asked Thehistorianisaac to refrain from continuing the discussion as well. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By the way are you an admin or something? I have a source related question. That may need a template to fix. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I do have experience with templates, so I might be able to help. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I am currently writing an article about the real/original pink ladies from the movie and play Grease. User:Historyguy1138/sandbox20 (Keep in mind I am not done with it)

I am doing more digging on the subject, but I am not sure how much history has been written about the topic. I got 2 newspaper articles, and one of them is a blog post from the author addressing her original source, and expanding on it.

From what I understand this fits Wikipedia's criteria on Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs. In that the author is acknowledged as being an expert in this subject, and more over has interviewed the subjects of the article.

So my problems are these:

• I believe that this author's blog is relevant based on wiki standards, but I totally get how some editors are hesitant with blogs.
• To my knowledge little has been written in general about this subject, so more sources may be difficult or impossible to find. Any the original Pink Ladies are dying off

These are my solutions per/se:

• Use the Template:More citations needed. But if there are not or may never be more sources on them so I am not sure if it is appropriate.
• Use another template or some type of note to editors about the Wikipedia:Citing self-published blogs

What do you think? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much help I can be in assessing the reliability of a blog, but you can inquire about it at WP:RSN. Those people have a lot more experience in assessing whether blog writers meet Wikipedia's standards for subject matter experts. As for your solutions, I'm afraid they don't solve the core problem that little has been written in general about this subject, so more sources may be difficult or impossible to find, which is a WP:SIGCOV issue. Template:More citations needed and similar tags are intended for articles that lack adequate citations, but the topics in question are known to have significant coverage from reliable sources. If no such sources are believed to exist, then the article will likely be deleted for failing WP:GNG.

I wouldn't give up hope, though. There are resources on Wikipedia that might help you find the sources you're looking for. Wikipedia:Find your source is a good place to start looking, and if you still can't find anything, you might try WP:REFD. - ZLEA _T\^C 01:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks friend. Hopefully there is enough. It would be a shame if this information was lost to history. Historyguy1138 (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your question, and I can give some book recommendations for the Chinese Warlord Era in general that I used. For the specific topic of European involvement in the Battle of Yangxia, I have never heard of that before and do not recall reading any source that talked about it. Ralph Powell's The Rise of Chinese Military Power was the main source I used about the 1911 Revolution, including the battle, and it can be accessed on Archive.org open library with a free account. Also, China: How the Empire Fell, by the editors Joseph Esherick and C.X. George Wei, also discusses the Wuchang Uprising and Battle of Yangxia, though I don't have access to most of it anymore, except the sections that are available on Google Books.

Some good sources for the Warlord Era overall include Edward McCord's The Power of the Gun: The Rise of Modern Chinese Warlordism (entirely free online), and McCord's chapter on the early republic in A Military History of China. Also, China Since 1911 by Richard T. Philips, Modern China: Continuity and Change by Bruce Elleman and S.C.M. Paine, and Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795-1989, by Bruce Elleman are good sources. Eric Setzekorn's The Rise and Fall of an Officer Corps includes an overview of it, especially the development of Chiang Kai-shek's nationalist army. These are some of the sources I used. Romanov loyalist (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found information in the:

Yangtze Patrol: The U.S. Navy in China https://www.amazon.com/Yangtze-Patrol-China-Bluejacket-Books/dp/1557508836, by General Kemp Tolley. He gives us a few pages of the incident on pages 65-69.

Tolley is a good author, but I wish he was better at being more specific in his citations instead of just a blank bibliography.

Also the 1911 revolution article gives a Chinese for the bombing here: 1911 Revolution#Wuchang Uprising:

It reads:

"Revolutionaries intent on overthrowing the Qing dynasty had built bombs, and on 9 October, one of them accidentally exploded.$$$$$ Footnote here $$$$$$ Sun ad no direct part in the uprising and was traveling in the United States to recruit more support from Overseas Chinese. The Qing Viceroy of Huguang, Rui Cheng (瑞澂), tried to track down and arrest the revolutionaries. The squad leader Xiong Bingkun (熊秉坤) and others decided not to delay the uprising any longer and launched the revolt on 10 October 1911, at 7:00 p.m. The revolt was a success; the entire city of Wuchang had been captured by the revolutionaries on the morning of 11 October. That evening, they established a tactical headquarters and announced the establishment of the "Military Government of Hubei of Republic of China". The conference chose Li Yuanhong as the governor of the temporary government. Qing officers like the bannermen Duanfang and Zhao Erfeng were killed by the revolutionary forces.

Revolutionaries killed a German arms dealer in Hankou as he was delivering arms to the Qing. Revolutionaries killed 2 Germans and wounded 2 other Germans at the battle of Hanyang, including a former colonel."

The footnotes source is "王恆偉. [2005] (2006) 中國歷史講堂 No. 6 民國. 中華書局. ISBN 9-6288-8529-4. pp. 3–7."

Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the claim about begging for Barnstar? So what if I wrote a couple to one of the users, so what? Spectra321578 (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kindness; any soothing words help. But it's best to avoid off-topic personal stuff on article talk pages, as someone will surely take offense at having their time wasted, and article talk pages are only for discussing article improvements. To answer the specifics about today, my husband has refused food since last night (a truly bad sign), and slept all day, so while I hoped he would wake up and eat, I nervously plugged away at the mindless work of completing and converting citations, which is the most my frayed nerves allow. I still have some days where I can really focus on content, but those are becoming rare. Thanks for asking and for caring. As a friend reminded me, "The will of God will never lead you where the grace of God cannot keep you." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" But it's best to avoid off-topic personal stuff on article talk pages, as someone will surely take offense at having their time wasted, and article talk pages are only for discussing article improvements. "

Sure makes sense.

"To answer the specifics about today, my husband has refused food since last night (a truly bad sign), and slept all day, so while I hoped he would wake up and eat," Oooooh I am so sorry to hear that. Does it help to talk about it?

"I still have some days where I can really focus on content, but those are becoming rare." If I may ask what inspired you to become an editor? (:

"Thanks for asking and for caring. As a friend reminded me, "The will of God will never lead you where the grace of God cannot keep you."

I too am a believer. I try not to mention it here, not because I am ashamed, but because I do not want people to know, because I sincerely try to not come out as biased. Actually sometimes funny enough I overshoot, and I get mistaken for being the complete opposite of my religious, philosophical, and political beliefs. LOL (X

That being said I will be praying for you, your family, and your husband. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prayers are appreciated. It doesn't really help to talk about it here, except to explain when my editing is poor or scattered, for two reasons. I try to escape when here, so would rather forget for a few hours what I'm living through. And years from now, when I'm still grieving, I don't want to come across reminders on talk pages.

I started editing almost 20 years ago when I saw grossly wrong information on every topic I knew well, and realized the reach of false info on Wikipedia. Back then, I was drawn to assume good faith and no personal attacks and verifiability and thought they were enforced here, so it was my kind of place. I quickly found how naive I was, and that you most often had to walk away from work you built and accept that it would be destroyed ... but I'm too stubborn to be chased out by the abusive editors I've encountered. Here is some of my work. Thanks again for the prayers, and keep the faith. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my bad manners; what inspired you to become an editor? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I try to escape when here, so would rather forget for a few hours what I'm living through. And years from now, when I'm still grieving, I don't want to come across reminders on talk pages." I can relate in some respects. I do apologize for the reminder. Not everyone heals from speaking of their pain. I am glad that wikipedia helps you and you do good work. (:

Wow your work is impressive. Are you a venezolana? Thank you for your work on Autistism. You are there first person that I have ever admitted to on wikipedia that I am a level 1.

Oooooh it's two fold I am am a history buff especially military history. One day though I was looking up a Battle I heard about and found no article was written about it, then I researched so much that I realized that I actually had the material to write an article on it.

Battle of Muddy Flat

It's a very niche topic, but I like to think maybe the information will help someone. Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Venezuelan; I lived and worked throughout Latin America for many years, and since I had my children during those years, it became like a second home. I had to walk away from the autism-related suite; that was a years-long cleanup effort on high-profile articles -- work that was destroyed after Eubulides left and I had little help and the area was taken over by advocacy, with two featured articles lost. By working on niche articles, your work is more likely to be preserved, as less other editors will damage them! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an adventurous life. I am happy that you had that experience.

I am sorry about your work. That sounds extremely frustrating to say the least.

" By working on niche articles, your work is more likely to be preserved, as less other editors will damage them! Best regards," That is comforting. So far out of articles I have made on my own, all I have done are niche articles. Thank you for that. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something has existed for decades, does not make it okay. The articles that you had mentioned are ones that you created, they don't help with anything but make the article look nice (which is a cosmetic edit). If you want to keep reverting me, then go ahead but the header colors are unnecessary and break MOS:COLOR. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh friend. I literally have no idea what you are talking about nor do I recall ever engaging with you before. What articles are you talking about? I also don't recall doing any big reverts lately only additions. Is it possible you have mistaken me for someone else? I have not done any major editions considering colors on an article lately. What are you talking about or what are you proposing? Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Historyguy1138, there's a merge proposal at 2025 United States strike on Venezuelan boat. Your thoughts on the matter would be welcome :) Dasomm (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I comment on their I want your thoughts, because I'm conflicted.

I think that maybe we keep the boat article, because if it happens to be the first of several strikes then maybe we should include the details of the first one as a separate article. For example it would be important to have First Battle of Bull Run, but perhaps not every little Civil War skirmish expect as a summary in a more broad article.

But.... I would rather include the details about the other cartels on wikipedia about the 2025 U.S. military campaign against cartels and since they are threatening to delete it, I would rather include everything in one article.

What are your thoughts? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will await the results of the deletion discussion :) Dasomm (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you a wonderful holiday season! Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to the project this year. It’s been a pleasure collaborating with you. I hope you get some well-deserved downtime away from the screen to enjoy the New Year! :) Dasomm (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You as well my friend. You are a great researching and an outstanding layout and format designer. I am grateful to have collaborated with you. May the good Lord preserve and keep you, your nation, and your family. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look Historyguy1138, the Lists of wars involving the United Kingdom now follow our new design for the Lists of wars involving the United States. We did a good job! Dasomm (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You know what they say ""Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" looks actually a lot better than what they had before. I think they could due with some criteria and notes for things like conflict involving wales, or even consider how to handle conflicts involving their colonies and companies, like the Pemmican War.

Looks like they also took inspiration on your layout design, excellent work. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dasomm sorry to be a pest I realize that you must have been away for a while based off of your contributions, but I sent you a message on your talk page, when you get the chance. Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok, I am still abroad, when I come home, I will update the map :) Dasomm (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah very good. I hope you enjoy some much needed rest and relaxation. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am honored. Thank you for this. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- just thought I'd let you know that you report here did not work properly, as you did not copy/paste the template outside of the hidden note area and instead just replaced the template. I've just fixed it, but I would suggest rereporting if they are still doing this behavior. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry about that. In trying to end what I hate, I accidentally became what I hate. XD

In any event I think another editor took care of it for me. But thank you very much. And my most sincerest apologies. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]