Historianess11

Historianess11, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Historianess11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Historianess11, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! –CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Underground Railroad

Thanks so much for your edits to the Underground Railroad article. I made some edits for tone \ objectivity, to clarify notability of the source, and remove uncited content here. If you have any questions about my edits please let me know. You can leave a message here (I will put this page on my watchlist) or on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Ah Hang has been accepted

William Ah Hang, 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 21% 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!

Rusalkii (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Great article, thank you for submitting it! It was very interesting. Courtesy ping to @Joshsteiny23: as well. Two things:

- I highly suggest you read WP:REFB and reformat the citations, since this will make it easier for people to read and for future editors to add to the article

- You may want to nominate the article at WP:Did You Know Rusalkii (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elijah Anderson (Underground Railroad) has been accepted

Elijah Anderson (Underground Railroad), 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!

Rusalkii (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello, I'm CaroleHenson. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Silvia and John Webber, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –CaroleHenson (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that this boilerplate link doesn't go into much detail. Wikipedia:Citing sources is more thorough. In general, I would say that there are many ways of creating citations, but the templates used in this article are the best standard approach.

You may want to look at my edits to Silvia and John Webber for some formatting changes that I made:

• Where I named a source that was used multiple times with <ref name="VR list 1867">...citation template info...</ref> For the subsequent use, all that is needed is the citation name and a bracket: <ref name="VR list 1867"/> in this version
• Proper use of citation parameters in the same version. See {{cite web}}, {{citation}} for descriptions of field usage.
• For information that you get from ancestry - as an FYI, only public records, directory, and other primary can be used. User-generated family trees, private documents, etc. cannot be used. When I use a source from ancestry I provide the information about the original source of the data, like: who's record, the work (deed, census, etc.), and the publisher (NARA, etc.). If it's a census record, you should state the year and the type of census: US federal census, state census, etc. You should not use an ancestry.com link. It might be easiest to check out the changes that I made here
• To link to a Wikipedia article, see MOS:LINKSTYLE - with this edit as an example.
• I use {{citation}} when it's a primary record without a link (like no link to ancestry.com). For some time, primary records have been frowned upon, but they can sure provide helpful insight. The key point it to take the genealogy aspect out of the equation and focus upon the source record. It looks like you look up records differently than I do. I get a screen that has the information typed out by field (detail) and then information about the source (sources) on another tab.

I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to ask questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear Carole! Thank you so much! I am learning how to do the citations appropriately, so I am being slower than normal. I am certainly on a learning curve. I appreciate all of your help! :)

Oops! I made a mistake on the duplicate citation issue. I made a typo where I used a period instead of a slash.

It's very much my pleasure! I had such a hard time with citations. It seems to me that you are picking it up quicker than I did. Keep up the really great work!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrián Vidal (November 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adrián Vidal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrián Vidal (December 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Blaze Wolf were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Adrián Vidal and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Work on this to make it acceptable?

Hello, I notice that you've tried twice to get the article approved. If you like, I would be happy to work with you on it:

• adding citations for uncited content
• removal of original research, where / if applicable (reviewer mentioned Legacy section as a possibility)
• improve the https://confederatevets.com/ - it's a personal, geneology site (i.e., two strikes against it)

Let me know if you'd like to work together - or I can review it after you make this changes. I would be happy to help either way. It doesn't look like there's too much to be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

After I posted this I realized that you are an occassional editor, so I went ahead and got the article ready for article space and moved it to Adrián Vidal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)