110fremont

Welcome!

Hello, 110fremont, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! BusterD (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Longstreet

Please stop reverting the changes to the Longstreet article. As explained in the Talk page, the very cursory description in Fuller's 50 year old analysis of Lee cannot be expected to override the more detailed references about this specific battle already cited for that paragraph. If you have information or opinions you wish to add, you can do so, but do not delete the cited material in the article. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to consider finding some concensus before you continue to change the Longstreet page again. The changes you are making (particularly reverting a sourced passage) seem less than helpful to the article. I, myself consider Longstreet to be one of the, if not the most, talented generals of the war. However, his actions at Gettysburg do not appear to be open debate without some kind of historical reference on your part. I do not think that his behaviour in this battle in any way detracts from his obvious talent throughout the war, and hope that you consider that this is simply an accurate depiction of his attitude at that time. My personal opinion is that he was correct in this matter, but that does not change the historical facts of his behaviour. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mstuczynski. In response your note: I would like you to consider the fact that the notion of Longstreet’s actions at Gettysburg is very much open to debate. The myth this outstanding general had a poor attitude, or did not aggressively support his commanding general is Lost Cause nonsense; that has been carried on for decades by academics committed to the interpretations of DSF Freeman and like minded academics. What actual evidence, historical facts as you say, do we have from those around him and observed him on the 2nd and 3rd days of Gettysburg are unequivocal proof he acted in the way anti-Longstreet writers have alleged? Jubal Early? Who essentially concocted this fantasy? His was an accusation made against Longstreet after the war, because he did not like his politics and wanted to diminish his military record as retribution. What proof do we have that Longstreet was (personally) slow on the second day? None. Quoting Wert's opinion that other author's who are not military professionals, have said about Longstreet, is not proof he was not aggressive. In fact, many examinations by the professional military of how his corps was still in the march prove an adequate number of units were going to take time to get into position, not to mention the problems with route recon. I do not believe Longstreet acted incorrectly in action or attitude at Gettysburg, and places some clarification to the article is not less than helpful; to the contrary it is an improvement. Additionally, why would anyone consider Fuller's book at 50 years old as dated and therefore not accurate or appropriate? The notion that a book, because it was written in 1993 is more appropriate than that of a Major General, a life long professional military officer is not logical. That would also mean any other observations decades old or older are also less relevant. That cannot be true. Certainly we must use Longstreet’s, Sorrel's, and Alexander's writings as primary sources, and those are a century old. Logically we must also conclude the professional military assessments as more relevant than that of those who have not had formal military training. Jeffry Wert's book is excellent; however, he is a high school teacher, not a military professional. He writes well and has his great strengths as an academic researcher, but his judgment on battlefield actions and conduct cannot be regarded as more correct than those of a real Major General. Thanks. (110fremont (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

This conversation should really occur on the talk page for the article, not one user's page, but we seem to have difficulty communicating.

The problem is not so much that the book is 50 years old per se, but that an enormous amount of scholarship has occurred since then that makes books of that era less valuable than they were. Particularly since Longstreet was under the shadow of the Lost Cause movement until just a few decades ago. Also, his book is an analysis of Lee, not Longstreet, and it devotes only seven pages to the entire Gettysburg campaign, so it skims over details. You have selected one relatively innocuous sentence about the approach to battle from that book and expect it to override much more detailed accounts in modern references. At the level of detail we are dealing with in this biography, Fuller is not an appropriate reference. I would not object to adding it if it offered some insight into Longstreet's character or behavior, which your cited passage does not.

However, the biggest problem with your proposal is the removal of the Wert citation. I don't care what his background is, he is a widely respected published author. If you have alternative viewpoints to quote from reputable secondary sources (and in Wikipedia, we use secondary sources, not primary sources), you are welcome to add those to the article. Simply deleting a viewpoint you do not like is in contradiction to Wikipedia policy. I think you will have difficulty finding such a source because most historians would not be comfortable saying something to the effect of "Longstreet enthusiastically supported Lee's plan for the attack on July 2 and aggressively moved his men to achieve an attack as early as Lee had intended." Even Longstreet himself would not agree with that assessment. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Jespersen, I have to disagree on most of your assumptions - you say Fullers book is a book about Lee, certainly, but Jean. E. Smiths book is about Grant. By that assertion, that book should not be a source either. And who says that an enormous amount of scholarship simply overides what came before, or makes an earlier observation correct? The problem with that notion in the case of Longstreet is much of the secondary sources about this general are a re-hash of the Lost Cause propaganda, and do not consider objective research, or research by military historians. The problem with your assetion that it is not important what Mr. Wert's background is, as long as he is widely respected, or a prolific writer, is that his background is an important part of writing about war. No doubt he is a good Civil War writer, but at some point he does not have the professional depth of knowledge and experience to quantify SDF Freeman, for example, is correct about the slow on the 2nd day of Gettysburg accusation. If Jeff Shaara, for example, was a writer of medical novels based on historical medical events, he could still only be considered to have a less than prefessional amount of knowledge on the subject of medicine. I am not simply deleting a viewpoint I do not like, I am deleting an observation not proven beyond the level that some earlier historians of bias thought this. Another problem with relying so heavily on one source - Wert, is that about 30 of 64 notes are soley from that book. Again, he is a respected author, but he is not the final say, or only author or source that talks about longstreet. Clearly, this article could use a somewhat more diverse spread of sources.(110fremont (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Some of the best Civil War historians out there today are neither military officers nor academic historians, so I don't discount an author strictly on his background. Opinions about novelists are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Wert is cited a lot in the article because there are relatively few biographies of Longstreet available (and I happen to own his book). I have no problem with people adding more (relevant) sources and citations. If you have counter-opinions to Wert's from reputable secondary sources, add them with citations. The reader can make up his mind about which are the most valid. I will be interested to see what you come up with; if I were aware of significant counter-opinions on this subject, I would have added them to the article myself. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In time I'll find an add more sources that will make this article better. Some will be primary sources, and I re-read through the policy, there is no absolute policy that says Wikipedia is only secondary sources. With all due respect, you are not the owner and approval authority of what goes in this article, everyone that uses Wikipeida is the owner/editor of any and all articles. Wert is a secindary source and so is Fuller, both are relevant sources to use as contributing sources to this article. Fuller's way of explaining this piece of the event is better than what is in Wert, that is why I select to use it. Thanks. (110fremont (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC))

Sometimes it is difficult to navigate your way through the maze of administrative documents on Wikipedia. In WP:PSTS, it says

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and; make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. ... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

So as an example, you can use a primary source for the statement "It was 87° at the height of the battle", but a statement such as "The high heat was a principal reason for the failure of the Confederate assault" requires a secondary source, the judgment of a professional historian to analyze the breadth of primary sources available and give them the proper weights. In the case we are discussing, the motivations of Longstreet and his performance on July 2 fit exactly into this Wikipedia guideline about the use of secondary sources only.

I do not claim to own this article, but my opinions on the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and the validity of sources are equally as important as yours. As a way out of this deadlock situation, I have offered you a perfectly valid compromise, which is to acknowledge that additional secondary sources may come to alternative conclusions, which you are free to add to the article to counterbalance Wert's opinion. (Which, as I've said previously, is a very widely held view, but the Wert citation was handy at the time.) As a further compromise, I will stop deleting the Fuller reference, because, although I believe its relevance to this article is minimal, it is not really hurting anything. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have any problem with the new phrasing you made to the passage, I think it is free of emotionalist Lost Cause political interpretation, and provides solid objectivity. I agree with that policy section you provided - as I understand it, and your example of temperture, a primary source that states a simple fact, is a supportive part to secondary interpretation. I added a recent article of examination to the reading list done this year, which is one of the best I have ever seen on the known fact "play by play" one can read straight from the ORs. (John Lott) Large portions of entire books have been written, such as by Phanz, on the second day. He would be a strong counter to the Wert statement for example. Another Wikipedia article could be established for that aspect alone, if the details of what happened are too far in the weeds for the purposes of this artcile (more of an overview of his career). An article like that could weight Lost Cause vs. academic vs. military, for eaxmple. (110fremont (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for your cooperation. I am certainly familiar with Pfanz's works, although I believe Coddington is more appropriate for analysis of command decisions during the campaign. Pfanz spends more time on blow-by-blow actions than on judgment. However, in his Second Day book, his description (pp. 112-13) of Longstreet's attitude toward Lee's plan is indicative of most other historians'. On page 154, he cites the typical Lost Cause criticisms of Longstreet without any attempt to refute them. I don't know whether you read the entire Wikipedia article, but the Legacy section covers these controversies in more detail.

I was interested to see your citation of The Civil War Courier. I am unfamiliar with this publication. Is it any good? I infer from the website that it is focused on reenactment, which is an aspect of the war in which I take little interest, but I'd be interested in hearing other views. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last on more objective sources - we discussed Phanz is good for the second day, but yes, there are sections where he rehashes Freeman I beleive. Glenn Tucker wrote "Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg." That's a really good one. Actually many contemporary primary sources seem to be the best, which became ignored after Lee died in 1870. Read Lee's report, and Longstreet's, Ewell and Hill's. British liaison/officer Col. Arthur Freemantle, who kept a diary, published it before the end of the war and he basically gives Longstreet credit for realizing that the attack could not succeed but saw no reluctance on Longstreet's part to obey orders. The German/Prussian liaison also wrote reports and observation, which I cannot comment on, as I have not read them. A person I know who works for the Park service at Anteitam just recently read an account that said that Longstreet looked "just fine at the battlefield," then observed how unhappy he was, when he observed Longstreet in the saddle on the way back to Virginia. For a more current writer - Gary Gallagher has worked to straighten out some of the Lost Cause Mentality, Gallagher is a very prominent historian, not just a writer. Dr. Piston's book a alright, but i have heard that if he wrote it today, instead of 1987, he would have steered farther away from Lost Cause influence. At the time, it was still not possible to get a book about Longstreet published that did not follow the popular formula. Someone who knows Piston told me that his original manuscript was 650 pages, and the publisher would only publish if he cut it to less than 200. I heard that 2nd or 3rd hand, but if its true, it shows how strong the grip on what was allowed and what was not allowed by the academic circles for a log time. I hope a few of these names are of interest to you. (110fremont (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

I am not familiar with all of these (can't read them all!), but remember that the goal here is not to assemble quotes from 1863 and analyze them ourselves, it is to find analyses by secondary sources that come to the explicit conclusions that, in contrast to the claims of the lost causers, Longstreet supported Lee's tactics and enthusiastically and aggressively approached the battlefield on July 2. It is relatively easy to find sources such as Gallagher who will argue that the lost cause sentiments were overblown at Longstreet's expense, but perhaps not so easy to find one who states there was no germ of truth in the claims. Don't get me wrong, if you find such a source, I will be happy to have it in the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would take some time to get through all this. I see your point that "the goal here is not to assemble quotes from 1863 and analyze them ourselves, it is to find analyses by secondary sources that come to the explicit conclusions that, in contrast to the claims of the lost causers, Longstreet supported Lee's tactics and enthusiastically and aggressively approached the battlefield on July 2." To my knowledge explicit secondary source conclusion as you describe are out there, but will be not as easy to find compared to the better known books like Gallager, many will be in more obscure magazines and journals. I will look for the type of wording you describe - direct contradiction to the anti-Longstreet type stuff. One easy one I know is Dr. Willaim Garrett Piston Lee's Tarnished Lieutenantp.58: No one will ever guess Longstreet's dislike of Lee's tactics from his performance on JUly 2. He timed his en echelon attacks carefully. He even led Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade against the peach orchard in person, riding well ahead of the attack and waving his black hat instead of a sword. A captured Union soldier remarked: Our generals don't do that sort of thing." That is a secondary source description of Longstreet who was doing his all in aggresive action and attitude to make Lee's plan work. He knew the plan was not going to be easy to make work, because he saw the tactics as faulty, so he added his own presence to compenstate. To get the maximum out of tired troops, that were already spent from the march. The Union quote is of course a primary. See if that fits somehow. It does not use the word aggressively, but it is Dr. Pistons description of aggressive support of his boss's plan. I'll have to read the Lott article, which I have, to see how that author describes Longstreet. (110fremont (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

The Piston quote is not relevant because the assertion on the table here is not how Longstreet conducted the attacks after 4 p.m.--I've seen very little criticism of that from anyone. The problem was his preparations for the attacks--the delays, the countermarching, the arguments with Lee in front of subordinates. Despite his later good execution, it's pretty apparent his heart was not in it until his men stepped off. That's what you're looking to refute. By the way, the more obscure the publication, the less compelling its arguments will be. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Longstreet Reply

Hi, a couple of apologies to begin. First, I'm sorry I have taken so long to reply to your statements, but real life often raises it's ugly head. Second, I thought it best to start a new heading so this wouldn't get lost in the above discussion with Hlj. Getting back on topic, however (and hopefully staying there), my note was meant fundementally as a bureaucratic argument on the accepted etiquette of editing an article, finding concensus and such. Although you make some excellent points, and I agree with the basis behind your conclusions (if not your conclusions per se), my feeling is that the debate should take place on the talk page of this article prior to any changes such as you propose. Time permitting, I would be happy to take up the issue with you there. As an aside, I am pleased that we share an appreciation for such a fine and underated general such as Longstreet. Thank you for your time. Mstuczynski (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Refuting LCM allegations Longstreet was "not aggresive" on 2nd July

I will try to get a passage from the Lott article tommorow, which gets to this - the prep before the assault at 4.00pm. Additionally, a Park Historian/Longstreet biographer had this to say about the second day concerning some of this (pretty interesting)- - Wert referred to Moxley Sorrel's statement on page 167, "There was apparent apathy in his movements. They lacked the fire and point of his usual bearing on the battlefield." Wert keyed in on that sentence (one man's opinion), and I will add that the book was published in 1905, after Longstreet and Sorrel had both died, so Sorrel's disloyalty would not be caught by L, and Sorrel, being dead, would escape the other wrath that I'm sure the SHS was going to heap on him for overwhelmingy positive things he said about Longstreet in the book. Sorrel's book was not well received in those days. It seems to me that it was a concession to the SHS to keep from making too many waves. Wert missed that no one else considered L lacking in fire or apathy in his movements during July 2nd. As a matter of fact, L's other sharp critic of Longstreet, McLaws, contradicts this and stated that "he was very excited and rode all over the field giving contradictory orders to the units" from Lee's staff officers. Doesn't sound very apathetic to me. The foreign observers, Peter Lawley and Arthur Freemantle, both wrote that L and Lee were in accord during the event, and Freemantle had no idea whatsoever of the level of L's unhappiness. Let me say that my respect for Sorrel couldn't have dropped much lower when I read what he wrote. When all the accounts are read, only L's staff and top subordinates knew he was angry and frustrated about these tactics, but he was also fired up about getting things as right as can be to make the assualt work. Everyone else reported L as behaving very normally. Anyway, that was overblown by Lost Cause types into the 20th century - like freeman. Wert is not a Lost Causer, but his research is mostly from secondary Lost Cause sources. Good perspective. (110fremont (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Sorry that I didn't see this text until just now. I appreciate all this data, but please remember that Wikipedia is based on secondary sources for opinions of this type. Don't focus too closely on poor Jeff Wert; he was a handy biographer to cite, but there are others with opinions as well. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

John Lott article

Mr. Lott's article reads: "Looking at General Early's allegations that General Longstreet was too slow, and negligent in commencing a morning attack, we are faced with enough evidence to contradict this conclusion. It would have been impossible for Longstreet to make an organized attack much earlier then that occurred based on the following. The commanding general made no final decision until late in the morning. No preparations could be finalized until this plan was in place. Even if the march was not countermarched, it could not have saved much time, not enough to compensate for the absence of a morning attack. Inadequate reconnaissance was made and given by the engineering staff, evidenced by the countermarch determined to be necessary and the fact that the US flank was not where it was expected. Thus, it is fair to state even though Longstreet should have planned for McLaw’s division by having it prepared earlier, or countermanded the orders to follow Captain Johnson, General Longstreet did all that could be expected on the 2nd day and any allegations of failing to exercise his duty by ordering a morning can be repudiated. It would have been impossible to have commenced an attack much earlier than it occurred, and it is doubtful that the Confederacy could have placed the attack in any more secure hands than General Longstreet.” This article is very long, and this is a sumation of all the arguments he lays out in detail in the body. (110fremont (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. Can you provide a complete citation (title, dates, page #s, etc), please? Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lott, John "Could Longstreet's Fatal Delay Have Been Avoided?" in the Civil War Courier, February 2008, page 27. The full article is page 12-27. (110fremont (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. I have updated the article with a quote from Lott along with some others. See what you think. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

More Longstreet

I will intersperse my replies below. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have to look at for bit. You are trying to illustrate earlier Lost Cause influenced writers made bold negative statements that were usually an indictment of Longstreet, etc.? And that writers who were not influeunced by the LC, and went back to weigh known fact in the ORs (as Lott) and studied the mission, troops, time, terrain, etc. conclude Longstreet did the best that could have been done?? And That interpretations are changing?

Sorry, I cannot parse this paragraph, so I don't know exactly what you're getting at. I have assembled a group of modern secondary sources, many of which who acknowledge the destructive influences the LC authors had, and nevertheless come to specific conclusions. Frankly, I have never heard of John Lott and until you pointed it out, I had never heard of the magazine he wrote for. I assume that the readers of the article will derive the appropriate reactions from their evaluations of the sources.

Second - not sure the names of Wert, Lott and others need to be placed in the article. Readers can look to them in the back by corresponding endnote #. An encylopedia article, which Wikipedia is, should be more matter of fact in appearance, in my opinion.

At one time I agreed with your view, but reactions from reviews of other articles indicate that Wikipedia editors prefer to see blatant opinions of this type identified by name. At one time I would have written "Joe Smith is a dope [footnote identifying the historian who wrote that]" but nowadays use the form "Historian John Doe called Joe Smith a dope [footnote]." I actually wrote this paragraph originally as one really long footnote, but it looked so bad, I decided to put it into the text.

I would condense it, and say in your own words, or paraphrase the two opposite ways Longstreet on 2nd July has been told by historians. Lott could close as you have to conclude the emotionalist interpretations were from a dying movement, and others ways of looking at the situation show different conlcusions, which show a prefessional general working through a very tough set of tasks.

The only way I would agree to condense it significantly is if you could find a roughly comparable number of very credible secondary sources that agree with Lott. However, today the bulk of opinion continues to lean against him very strongly, and I am using the disparity of citations to illustrate that point subtly.

The other thing is overall perspective. Many authors who say things like Longstreet should have been censured or punished, etc., it seems way out of perspective/proportion for a general that delivered some great victories, and who Lee repeatedly praised and counted on. Its one thing to state fact that Longstreet did not think x tactic was a good idea, which probably was a source of frustration at one point. But some of the things these authors say, is over the top personal emotional opinion. They are free to write what they want in thier books, but alot of it is fiction. This Wikipedia article would be a great source of more matter of fact kind of phrasing on Gettysburg, or Knoxville, the events he is almost vilified for. (110fremont (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

It is not up to us as Wikipedia editors to judge what is fiction or what is proportional from the secondary sources. We need to ensure that the secondary sources that are cited are balanced. So if there is a credible, modern professional historian who writes in a mainstream book or magazine, "Longstreet was a space alien," we can presumably find one or more comparable secondary sources that refute that claim.

By the way, to dredge up a previous discussion, I checked in the book "Leaders of the American Civil War: A Biographical and Historiographical Dictionary" (cited in the article now), and the author refers to Wert's biography. He says, "... in minute detail he reconstructs where Longstreet succeeded and failed. The judgment on success is mixed, but Wert nevertheless has done excellent service to Longstreet's memory." And in Dave Eicher's "The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography", he says, "This study offers a modern and correct view of this much-maligned commander. Unlike the traditional school that supports the Lee-Jackson mythology and bashes Longstreet, this biography provides a full look at Longstreet's life with the predictable (and proper) heavy emphasis on the war years. It does not view Longstreet altogether sympathetically, instead casting a realistic light on the situations Longstreet found himself in on and off the battlefield. ... In his interpretation of Longstreet's performance, the author sides with other revisionist works, and he documents the politically motivated postwar attacks on Longstreet that Southerners perpetrated to build up Lee and Jackson." Neither of these two historiographers mentions that Wert was a high school teacher. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on James Longstreet. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To: Ave Caesar, I am more than willing to follow your suggestions...however, I do not know who is reverting my edits..where is that info. Thanks. (110fremont (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

At the top of the article click on the "History" tab and it will show you the edit history of the article. Before reverting edits made to the article by another user it is best to bring up a discussion on the article talk page. Discussions concerning article edits should be made there rather than on user talk pages since this helps bring in more opinions. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your last...still, there is no name or entity associated with the last reverts where you told me to go, the last person I worked with was May. That person was of the opinion he essentially owned the article, so he may not be willing to discuss, if it is the same person. Anyway, I'll add my changes again, and see if the other editor wants to talk about reshaping this article.(110fremont (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to James Longstreet, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

BusterD - I will add some sources to the sections I am reworking to meet the verifiability policy. Thanks. (110fremont (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Irving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In Search of.... 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) 06:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at David Irving, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War Devils, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Laura Ingraham. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I noticed that in this edit to Confederate Monument (Murray, Kentucky), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sea Cow (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Leif Erickson (actor)

added a link pointing to Longstreet

Skip Homeier

added a link pointing to Longstreet

Susan Oliver

added a link pointing to Longstreet

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically, you're linking to Longstreet when you mean to link to Longstreet (TV series). If you type it like this: [[Longstreet (TV series)|Longstreet]], it'll display like this: Longstreet. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) (fixed link at 06:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC))