KevinLuna
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. KevinLuna has not edited Wikipedia since 12 November 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Welcome! edit
|
Seven Days Battles edit
I can't find the citation you added to capturing Richmond and ending the war.
Richmond was the leading industrial center of the Confederacy, so I think that should at least be noted.
I think it is unreasonable for anyone to assume the capture of Richmond in 1862 would have ended the war because when Grant finally took Richmond the South did not surrender. The end came a week later when Grant trapped Lee and 30,000 at Appomattox before he could combine forces with Johnston. Lee had no intention of surrendering after the fall of Richmond, unless by force, so why would he do it in 1862 with 3 times as many men? Had Lee been successful in consolidating troops with Johnston, the war could have continued indefinitely.
There's really no way of knowing for sure if the war would have ended, so I think a word like "hasten" or "potentially" should be added, too. Maybe something like this?
"The Peninsula Campaign was the unsuccessful attempt by McClellan to capture the industrial center and Confederate capital of Richmond and hasten the end of the war."
KevinLuna (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- The citation is the first one at the end of the paragraph--Sears, p. xi--but I could have added almost any CW book that covers the Peninsula Campaign. The North was convinced in those early days of the war that capturing the Rebel capital would effectively in the war. (One notable exception to this view was Abraham Lincoln's, who wanted the Confederate Army to be the primary target, and he stuck to this view throughout the war. His problem was he could not convince the northern public and most of his generals to agree until Grant arrived.) It is apparent from the way that McClellan planned the campaign that his target was the city, not the army. Whether the capture of Richmond would have actually ended the war is arguable, but that was the strategy at the time. If you can find secondary sources that indicate Richmond's manufacturing capacity was a primary reason for it being targeted in March 1862, we can add that opinion. But remember we are discussing 1862 here, not 1865 and Lee and Johnston. Military/industrial factors were not considered as important as political ones that early in the war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The sentence sounded to me like it was saying that had Richmond been captured, the war would have ended, rather than saying that had Richmond been captured, McClellan/Union thought the war would have ended. KevinLuna (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
April 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Judas Iscariot, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you edit
|
The Modest Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
Please stop making unconstructive edits to the Bart Sibrel article. Your assessment that Mr. Sibrel is not a professional film maker is highly point-of-view, and while you may not agree with the essence of or messages in his documentaries, that is no reason make statements about his professional know-how. Furthermore, while it may or may no be correct that Mr. Sibrel has been or is a taxi driver, it adds nothing of encyclopedical value to the article. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have once again removed the taxi driver statement from the lede. Taxi driving is already mentioned in the article, but it is not what makes Mr. Sibrel noteworthy as an encyclopedic subject. Placing it in the lede denigrates Mr. Sibrel and does not contribute to a balanced, non-biased biography. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 05:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"quoted here with permission"? edit
What is quoted in this edit [1]? Where is the permission? Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reference says "private correspondence (quoted here with permission), March 19, 2009, referring to The Essential Teachings of Jesus and Mary by Walter L. Williams, unpublished manuscript, December 24, 2008, excerpts available at...". Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Photos of victims and shooter edit
The same edit has been added to a number of talk pages, eg Talk:Virginia Tech massacre , saying: "There's a picture of the shooter posing with his guns trying to look badass but none of the victims anywhere. And people wonder why kids do this kind of crap." Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. Articles contain material necessary for full coverage of the case, and images of shooters like Cho have appeared widely in the media.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
"Photos of victims and the shooter" edit
There are no pictures of the victims on Wikipedia pages about school shootings, because pictures of the victims never circulate. As well as that Wikipedia isn't a memorial page. There are plenty of those around the internet. Salamibears58 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Salamibears58
Disambiguation link notification for July 25 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 1972 Andes flight disaster
- added a link pointing to Anthropophagy
- Donner Party
- added a link pointing to Anthropophagy
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 2 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 1st Regiment Eastern Shore Maryland Volunteer Infantry
- added links pointing to Somerset County, Dorchester County, Talbot County and Caroline County
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, KevinLuna. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, KevinLuna. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)