User talk:Billmckern

Billmckern (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Davis

Thanks for the help with Timothy Davis. I have conflicting sources saying where he's from, one saying Utica, NY and another for Newark, NY. I'm pretty sure what's happening there is that he was born in New Jersey, but moved to Utica later, but I can't completely corroborate it because it's between censuses. My reason for the thought is that a pretty well known architect named Alexander Jackson Davis, at least according to some genealogy sites, who has a similar migratory pattern and is his cousin through his father (Sylvanus-->Cornelius-->Alexander), only he opted to stay in New York while Timothy took off to Kentucky/Missouri for some reason.

I'm currently closing on a house his son lived in when he established the Pickwick Mill and have been trying to find out more about buildings he and his family built to see if there are similarities in layout and style that might give some insight into what renovations have happened over time and what is original. Hence why I'm drilling pretty hard on a couple of unincorporated communities and relatively obscure people.

Thank you from Dalone55

As you might have guessed, I'm a bit new at this. Thank you for editing the photo of Ann Eliza Brainerd Smith. I'm working at connecting another photo, this of her husband the Governor. You may have to rescue me there also. I thought it more important to get the photo attached than not. Dalone55 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dalone55: No trouble -- If you want, you can click the edit tab on other pages and see what the formats look like. I added several photos to the Lesley J. McNair page, so that might be a good one to start with. That's how I learned. Let me know if I can do anything else to help.

Billmckern (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Jedediah Hyde Baxter

Alex Shih^Talk 12:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job on all the pictures for New York congressional district members. Keep up the good work! Jamo58 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Truly impressed with all the pictures you are uploading! Keep it up!!!! Jamo58 (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Herbert Thomas Johnson

Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Edward H. Ripley

Would it be all right with you if I nominated your article of Edward H. Ripley at Did you know? — Maile (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

By all means, feel free.

Billmckern (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

There is a discussion at Talk:List of United States congressional districts related to style of new district-level maps for the post-2013 United States congressional districts. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. --7partparadigm ^talk 02:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Edward H. Ripley

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Did you check the Page view stats for this being on today's front page? Impressive. — Maile (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Those stats are impressive. I noticed that several people jumped in and made edits to the Edward H. Ripley page, too -- some of which were quickly reversed.

Billmckern (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, alien abductions and other fun stuff. They really ought to protect these articles while they're on the main page. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on expanding Kenneth J. Gray. Great job! Connormah (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Connormah (talk) -- Thanks very much. I keep meaning to go back and add details about Gray's family, but I haven't gotten to that yet. I'll try to follow up soon.

Billmckern (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Orville E. Babcock

Hello Billmckern. I thought you might be interested in editing President Ulysses S. Grant's personal secretary, staff officer, and war time comrade Orville E. Babcock. He was from Vermont. I have been editing on his biography, mainly focusing on the Whiskey Ring. He is mentioned by biographers of Grant. This makes editing on his Wikipedia biography article difficult for myself, because I am relying on several different authors, McFeely, Smith, Brands, and White. If you have time or interest in Babcock, your suggestions or editing on the article would be highly appreciated by me. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cmguy777: -- I'll try to work on this when I can.

Billmckern (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Billmckern. Sounds great ! Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Robert Williams disambiguation

Are you sure that Robert Williams (North Carolina politician) and Robert Williams (Mississippi politician) are two different people? I strongly doubt that the birth and death dates used in the NC article are legitimate. This, this, and this, among a plethora of sources, certainly lead one to believe that they are one and the same. If you have reliable sources that indicate that they are different people, I will refrain from merging the articles. Star Garnet (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Star Garnet: -- I'm not positive that they're two different people. I had found a source which made this claim, and I tried to verify it, but I've never been able to. Given the number of other sources which indicate that Robert Williams of North Carolina and Mississippi was the same person, I'd say that's probably the accurate version. I don't see any issue with merging the articles.

I'll try again to find the original reference and see if i can verify it. If it turns out to be true, I can always create an article for the other individual of the same name.

Billmckern (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Invitation.

Hello Billmckern, I’m sending this invitation to you, as to a contributor to the article Lifesaving Medal, who probably will have interest to have a look at the newly created Bravery Barnstar on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards

As this Project currently regarded as semi-active, and not visited by many Wikipedians, then I, as participant of this Project, decided to send the invitations to right people, whose works on Wikipedia have been related to this topic. The Editor Dennis Pietras offered the idea to create the Bravery Barnstar, and I tried my best in regards of design of this, as I think, much needed Barnstar; thus if you will appreciate both, the idea and the design, please let other Editors know about that by writing words of support. All the best. Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Billmckern, Thank you very much for your reply and for the appreciation of design. Thing is, that a complete description of the meaning of the Star and to whom it should be awarded and for what, is in the open discussion in the end of the same page. The place, where you left your message was more for the discussion of the design between the author of idea - Editor Dennis Pietras and Editors, who offered him different version of designs, as I did. Then Editor Dennis Pietras decided to choose the version of the Bravery Barnstar, which I offered.

So in the end of the same page you will see the discussion open for voters. All the best.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Chris Oxford: On it. Made my comment. Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Primaries

Although in many many many cases, a primary election is tantamount to full election, these election charts only depict the candidates in the general election. HOWEVER, it would be good to start a new section after the summary which depicts all details of the elections, such as primary contests, etc. —GoldRingChip 18:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: -- But what if there was no general election? I leave it to you to figure out to format and present it...

Billmckern (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Are you sure there was no general election?—GoldRingChip 22:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Found it. Although the contested primary was in September 1911, the uncontested general was in January 1912. I've moved that reference to United States Senate special election in Virginia, 1912. Thanks for keeping up with this; it's great to have someone else who's as passionate about these details! —GoldRingChip 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@GoldRingChip: - That's good work. I was checking Newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive.com, and I found reference to the September 1911 primary, and to a November 1911 statewide election, but the November stories contained nothing about the Senate race. It didn't occur to me that there would have been a general election on a different date.

Billmckern (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Funny you should say that, for some earlier articles, I relied almost 100% on newspapers (esp. NYT), and they were growing less and less reliable. Then I found the Tribune Almanac and the World Almanac, which made it much better. Once I get to the elections after the 17th amendment, newspapers will be more reliable I suspect, because all the elections will be published at once in November and I won't have to fish for them one-by-one. Please feel free to use as many resources as possible, however. Keep up the good work!—GoldRingChip 01:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• (kibitzing) As the 17th Amendment did not go into force until 1913, wouldn't this election have been by the Virginia General Assembly? Since the GA convenes in January and likely did then too, they would have started to try to elect a senator the week after they convened, in joint convention. I'd see if you could find the journal of the House of Delegates or Virginia Senate for 1912.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• This seems to be it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fillmore

Thanks for your edits. What would be quite useful, if you are minded to dig for it, is a little info on Fillmore's ancestry as in where they came from in Europe. I'm traveling at present and most of my sources are not. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

US National Security Advisor

A few editors have been updating that McMaster has been NS Advisor since February 23, 2017. Not sure, if I'll be able to continue to stop them. GoodDay (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Maybe adding a line about requiring Senate confirmation? Maybe I'll add that and see if it helps.

Billmckern (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've updated McMaster as Nationa Security Advisor, back dating to February 20, 2017. Others have made such edits to Keith Kellogg & Michael T. Flynn, showing that McMaster has been appointed & doesn't need Senate confirmation. PS: CNN has been referring to him as the National Security Advisor. If this is all incorrect? then I recommend you keep an eye on all those articles & National Security Advisor (United States) itself. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I assume that McMaster is working in the position even though he hasn't been confirmed yet. I'm sure he requires Senate confirmation because three and four star generals and admirals require Senate votes on both their rank and their assignment. I'm probably not going to devote too much time and effort to trying to keep this straight. In the end, he'll be confirmed, and the question will be resolved on its own. When so many people feel like they have a vested interest in an article, my inclination is not to argue. That wasn't always so, but I'm trying to get better.

Billmckern (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@The-Expose-inator: Reference your undo of my editing out of the term "passed over" in the McMaster bio, just because one "know nothing about the Military" New York Times reporter used the term incorrectly in print doesn't make it a fact. Because all serving colonels with one year TIG remain in the zone of consideration until they retire, the term "passed over" is not used in the army for promotion to BG as no one has ever been selected with just one year TIG so every general has at least one "pass over." The fact that McMaster was the second officer in his entire West Point Class of 1984 selected for general and was selected two full years ahead of his contemporaries should tell you something. Regardless, I don't care enough to fight you on this because Wikipedia is chuck full of incorrect information and this is just one more.The-Expose-inator (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@The-Expose-inator: I have no idea why you're bringing up something that's more than a year old. But since you did, I don't get why you want to argue this point. It's very well documented that McMaster was passed over twice for brigadier general -- 2006 and 2007. The term "passed over" was used routinely in describing the circumstances. And blaming some reporter who knows nothing about the military won't cut it. Tim Kane said the same thing in his book Bleeding Talent. Parco and Levy said it in Attitudes Aren't Free. Tim Harford said it in Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure. Fred Kaplan said it in The Insurgents.

Billmckern (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for William G. Price Jr.

Chester, Pennsylvania Armory, designed by Will Price

I was actually amazed to see this since Will Price, a Quaker architect, lived in Rose Valley, Pennsylvania a couple of miles from Chester. The 2 William Price's must have known each other since Will designed the Chester Armory. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for USS Princeton disaster of 1844

An article that you have been involved in editing—USS Princeton disaster of 1844—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. RM2KX (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Democrat Party

Greetings. Thank you for your attention to the article Democrat Party (epithet). Please have a look at Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)#Russell Baker criticism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

* On article talk pages, please focus on article content, not contributors. I am happy to discuss specific changes to the article, but these kinds of personal insults are blatantly uncivil. See also WP:TALK#Good practices. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rjensen:, @Sangdeboeuf: -- Sangdeboeuf, YOU'RE the one who has the problem. You're NOT "willing to discuss specific changes". What you do is lay down conditions and make stuff up, and then change the conditions once the original ones have been met. You're being disrespectful of the work of others and insisting that only you are right, and that you get to have everything your own way.

That's a problem for others, so you should stop.

Billmckern (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"Deciding vote for Jefferson?"...

You posted about Lyon's "Deciding vote for Jefferson?" and the post was placed on the GA Review page - Talk:Matthew Lyon/GA1. Wanted you to know that I moved the post/thread to the main talkpage Talk:Matthew Lyon as that seems to be a better/more appropriate location for the post. Shearonink (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Thanks for moving my commentary -- I thought I placed it on the talk page. I guess I should have paid closer attention.

Billmckern (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

PIE

Eddie891 has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Great Work on Robert H. Jackson!'†

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant

Hello Billmckern. I was wondering if you could look at the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article. It's rather large. I have made some progress on the lede section. Do you have any suggestions on how to make the article better ? You are welcome to make any edits if you have time. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Army National Guard

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Army National Guard you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Army National Guard

The article Army National Guard you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Army National Guard for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hchc2009 -- Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: Thanks for the feedback. Let me see what I can do about working off the items you listed, and then re-submitting for good article consideration.

Billmckern (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers - happy to help out along the way as needed. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar for Van Buren

		The Original Barnstar
		You have done an excellent job not only with the references here but also great writing. Hoppyh (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Vermont?

Hey Bill! I just read that you are based in Vermont: whereabouts? I move to Brattleboro a year and a half ago, and haven't met any Wikimedians up here. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sadads: Barre City. I don't spend much time there at present, as much as I'd like to, because I'm employed in Virginia. I go home every so often to see family and friends, pick up mail, etc.

Billmckern (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! But bummer: D.C. area suck you in end, end of career with the Guard/Military? My dad had a similar military career ending down there. If there is a window of time that you plan to be up here for a while: I want to get the Vermont Historical Society to run an editathon at some point, and they have a really good library in Barre. I have the contact for the state librarian, but have been super busy over the last few months: so haven't reached out yet, Sadads (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sadads: I've been in the National Guard for almost 35 years. I was a full timer for 17, and then went to work as a contract employee last year. Remains to be seen how much longer I'll stay in uniform as a part timer.

I've been to the VHS library in Barre -- it's at the old middle school on Washington Street, which was the high school before that. I've been a NHS member for several years. Let me know if you follow up on the editathon. There are some Vermont-specific articles that could definitely use some work.

Billmckern (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like my dad's career :) Would be awesome to have more Wikimedians up here in the Vermont area, but I know what the D.C. area offers.

As for topics, definitely: sounds like a plan! Are you going to try to come to Wikimania? It sounds like they are doing a WikiConference North America PreConference before Wikimania proper, since its in Montreal. Sadads (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with Amb. Robert A. Mandell?

Hi Bill, you helped edit the article on Ambassador Colleen Bell back in December 2015. If you're still interested in articles about ambassadors, I have a similar one: my new edit request is on the article for Robert A. Mandell, the U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg from 2011 to 2015. The existing article is short and haphazard. My draft expands on Mr. Mandell's life, career, and ambassadorship, while cleaning up some existing content. I'm here asking for another editor to review and consider implementing it is because I am working on behalf of Mr. Mandell, as I've disclosed on the article's discussion page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@WWB Too: I was deleting outdated conversations from my talk page this morning and realized I hadn't done anything with the Mandell bio. I made an update today and used your draft. I also expanded the lede, and added some post-Luxembourg details and references. Take a look and let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Billmckern (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bill, thanks for the ping. At first I was confused by your message, because this project was actually completed in the spring. So I had a look at the page and, even more confusing, it looks like it did before my involvement. Then I realized what's going on: this page has been targeted by WikiInAction and a couple of IPs have been reverting the page. I had no idea about any of that until just this week. Since you support the version I had put forward as better than what's there now, would you be willing to restore this version from May 16, including the newer photo, and make any other changes you think best? Let me know, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As you may have seen, the IP editor is continuing to revert the article, and make false accusations against me. I have responded on the Mandell talk page to explain clearly. What do you think is the best thing to do now? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop making personal attacks. As explained on the relevant talk page, I am prepared to discuss and collaborate to get this article rewritten in a policy compliant way to improve the project in good faith. It is clear now that Billmckern is not an uninvolved editor for such edits and was canvassed to act as a meatpuppet. 101.57.254.37 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How DARE YOU! I'm no one's puppet. I encourage you to look at my long list of contributions before you make any more false allegations. I wasn't canvassed to act as a meat puppet. I was asked for assistance, which happens all the time. So I took the time to do some writing and add some references -- actions I undertake almost every day.

The fact that you personally don't seem to approve of my contributions to the Mandell article is not a reason to revert them. As I've said repeatedly, my work is my own, it's in line with my personal interests, it has nothing to do with my employment, and I do it as a volunteer. You need to stop your overreaction and falsehoods NOW, please.

Billmckern (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

See the thread below. The fact is that you admittedly used WWB_Too's draft, so you can hardly claim originality or independent authorship. You have a COI which I have alluded to later. Your personal interests are connected to your profession. 101.60.253.221 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Lyon

Great job with your contributions to the Matthew Lyon article. You might find Anthony Haswell interesting too. Cake (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of flags and insignias from multiple info boxes

User Huberthof has been getting around these past couple of days with his newly created account, and seems to be on this mission to remove flags and insignia from numerous articles, mostly those of American military people. This users cites a guideline about flags in infoboxes (which btw says nothing about insignia), but ignores the fact that every guideline stipulates "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.". Famous military people are such exceptions. Other editors have taken exception to this apparent mission to remove flags and insignia, mostly from the articles of prominent Americans, as evidenced on Huberthoff's Talk page. Imo, we should return these items to the infoboxes. Some of these articles, like George Washington Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant have had these items when they were approved for GA and FA status, with no issues all of this time. See the debate at Military history Talk. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

For you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Presented to Billmckern for making corrections in numerous articles of U.S. Representatives -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert A Mandell

What is the "applicable law" for paid contributions on Wikipedia and its sister sites? Are undisclosed paid contributions potentially illegal?

"Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are unlawful".

A -- Unsigned, so I don't know to whom I'm replying.

B -- Well, to start with, receiving pay for making contributions to Wikipedia would be a pretty obvious conflict of interest.

C -- Beyond that, different states have different statutes of fraud, but some of the provisions that are included in all of them include prohibitions on false advertising. That means getting paid to write a false article about a product or service could be construed as fraud, either civil or criminal, depending on the circumstances.

Billmckern (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As your user page describes you are easily identifed as either being "William Mckern" - "Operations Security Analyst and Instructor Sotera Defense Solutions, Inc." or an impersonator (which seems to be endemic in articles where paid editors are involved). Accordingly, should you not self revert, I may contact your employers to verify your identity and antecedents regarding Mr. Mandell and any COI of Sotera for Mr. Mandell or State Department. In the case of GabeIglesias it was clear that WWB_Too targeted him for his prior asssociations with the State Department, in Sotera's case I can already see a mass of public information linking them to the State Department. 101.57.254.37 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Your edit of 4 October after an unexplained gap of 5 months, which completely ignores the edit summary of the previous editor, evidences your deceptive intent. 101.57.254.37 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You must have missed the note where I explained that I ran across the request for help on the Mandell article while I was deleting old messages from my talk page. Don't accuse me of deception. YOU don't even have an account with a login name.

Billmckern (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

My employment, which you correctly described, has nothing to do with my work on Wikipedia, which is all mine, and volunteer, and all in line with my personal interests, not my professional ones. Don't call me deceitful again.

Billmckern (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am not required to have a login name - You may have missed the WMF's note where IPs are as equal as any standard account. I am supposed to AGF for an employee of "Spies for Hire" The Analysis Corporation which is which is staffed by (other) former senior officials from the Intelligence community, operates within almost every entity in the Intelligence Community including the US Department of State, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) ??? Your deception and conflict of interest is written all across your edits. No wonder WWB_Too recruited you, or was it the other way about ? 101.57.254.37 (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What is your problem? NO ONE "recruited" me. I have no deception or conflicts of interest involved in my work. I don't know what your problem is, but you need to stop lying about me right now.

Billmckern (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you cool off, review your COI and stop edit warring. I have already indicated my willingness to collaborate to redevelop this article with discussion if we start from a neutral version like Drmies version. 101.57.254.37 (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You call me a liar and then have the balls to tell me to cool off. Not gonna happen. You need to stop lying about me. You need to stop falsely accusing me of a conflict of interest. You need to stop falsely conflating my employment with my personal interests. I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish, but you're not going to stop me from creating the articles I want and working on the articles I want.

Billmckern (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if I was going to be deceitful on purpose, using my own name as my screen name and then telling people how to contact me seems like pretty thin cover, doesn't it? If I wanted to lie intentionally about a conflict of interest, wouldn't I ue a screen name that's unconnected to me, or use an IP address?

Billmckern (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

DRR involving you

DRR involving you] 101.63.168.177 (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Carter Page. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: The problem isn't me edit warring. The problem as I see it is you apparently ignoring or obfuscating factual information that contradicts your point of view. My edits are factual, and I've provided accurate and credible references for them. The fact that they don't agree with your point of view is not a reason to revert or delete them. I'll submit a Request for Comments and see if we can build a consensus. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I am, and it will take more than you to convince me.

Billmckern (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for your work on Seneca Haselton!

Owlsmcgee (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Billmckern. 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)

John Parsons Cook

Hello,

I've seen your contributions to Iowa's 2nd congressional district (thanks!) and I was wondering if you had an image available of John Parsons Cook to complete the list. Also, an image of Benjamin T. Frederick would complete the 5th district's list. Thanks again.

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@WhatsUpWorld: I usually run through all the names for one Congressional district to find and add as many illustrations as I can. If I haven't added anything for Cook and Frederick, it probably means I searched but didn't find anything. I'll look some more and see if I can turn up something.

Billmckern (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! WhatsUpWorld (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

the Richard Blumenthal page

I'm a little confused why you edited the fact that Blumenthal lied about his military service out of his page. I'm writing an article on the perceived liberal bias on Wikipedia regarding the difference in presented and allowed statement between liberal and conservative politicians. Please let me know why you don't feel it's important to disclose that he actually did lie in a section directly about that issue? (Comment by 107.242.113.5)

Reply: It's already in two places in the article.

Billmckern (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Richard M. Blatchford (born 1798)

Would you mind if I move this page to Richard Milford Blatchford? The page move is currently blocked by a redirect, but it will be an uncontroversial technical move, unless you object. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: That's fine. Thanks for doing it. I used "Richard M. Blatchford (born 1798)" because there was an existing red link for it. Most of the wiki links I've added in the few minutes since creating the article were for Richard Milford Blatchford.

Billmckern (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki:, @Galobtter: Thanks for your help with Richard M. Blatchford (attorney) and the rest of the Blatchford family. I found most of the content for the article pretty quickly, and created the content in one sitting. I appreciate the assistance with upgrading, cleanup and "prettifying" -- including coming to consensus on details like what the article should be named, and then making the necessary edits and re-edits.

Thanks again.

Billmckern (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hah, I should be thanking you for creating a (very nice) article. :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A Blatchstar for you!

	The History Barnstar
	For your dedicated and impressive work on articles relating to the Blatchford family. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No reason given for the revert on General Vessey. Therefore undone. Please look before you leap

1200 days is an above average term and therefore cannot be considered relatively short. Check JCS chart to confirm. OR is not allowed and neither are claims that are easily disproven. It also does not enhance or clarify the article. Just someone's dumb false assertion.

@Pheasantpete: Not only did I give a reason for the revert, I provided a reference. The first claim was that three years is not a shorter term than usual. The second claim is that three years is the length of the term. Those are both factually incorrect. The length of the term is simply not debatable -- it's two years. By tradition, JCS chairmen serve two year terms, or four years.

This fact, coupled with this tradition, clearly make a term of three years shorter than usual.

Now, when you compare Vessey's length of term to those of the other JCS chairmen, he ranks 14th out of 18. Wheeler at number one, served over five years. Number 2 served exactly four years. Six chairmen served one day less than four years. 5 served nearly four years. Vessey served three years and three months, give or take. His term was clearly, obviously, inarguable shorter that 14 of his 17 peers. To call that shorter than usual is an absolute fact.

Am I going to change the Vessey article back? You bet I am. Because you are blatantly incorrect and personally insulting.

Billmckern (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion on what a short term is

You sure did express your opinion that 1200 days (over three years is a short term. [[1]]

Are you going to include that in the other four of the 18 that served shorter terms to remain consistent? 2 years is a normal term, anything substantially under 2 years would be relatively short. Over 2 years is longer than a standard term. That is blatantly correct. He retired from active service which means he cannot be the JCS. Why did he retire? Not addressed in the article. When I first checked your revert I did not see your DoD reference. It could be my mobile version cut it off? Regardless it's your opinion that 3 years is a short term. I will note his second term was 9 months short of a full second term but that is not what you wrote. Overall he served 1200 days and the average of service is 1300 days. In mathematics he is very close to the median. So hyperbole aside he was not "comparitively" short by any logical defenition. And how does this wording help clarify anything? Not clear what you are trying say either. Confusing wording has no place here. Hope that helps. Pheasantpete (talk)

@Pheasantpete: The only person who seems to be "confused" is you. Three years and three months is irrefutably less than four years. Vessey's term was shorter than 14 of his 17 peers. Vessey served 1,142 days. The 14 who served more range from 2,190 days to 1,436. You're just wrong. And honestly, I don't really care about the point. I do care about the way you're handling this, and the gratuitous insult. Now I'm going to argue the point on principle. You're wrong, and I'm not going to let you have your way just because of the way you're going about trying to get it.

Billmckern (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I see you are upset, oh well, if you "don't care" then why insist on such misrepresentation in the article? It seems you have dug your heels in & you are unlikely to climb out of the rut you are in. Vessey was the 14 longest time in office, 4 served shorter times in office. He completed his first term as did most. He retired 5/8 into his second term for undisclosed reasons. To correct you he served 1200 days not the 1142 you have above. You got the wrong guy, that would be Nathan Twining. The average of the 18 is 1300 days. 1200 is 92.3% of the average. That is really close to average albiet slightly lower. What is your principle point? You are right? That is what you said, "your wrong" (I am right, added for clarity). Now we can go back and forth but that will not change the fact that 92.3% of average is not significantly shorter. It would be better to rewrite it to say something much clearer like perhaps, he retired before his second term was finished, not some weasel sounding garbage. If you want to be honest with yourself you might want to carefully consider better wording because the current wording does not accurately reflect reality. Pheasantpete (talk)

Another point, 104 days past three years does not equate to "slightly 3 years" as you pasted in the article's opening. That is nonsense (that means an illogical conclusion). Again what is your point to adding nonsense words to sentences? Pheasantpete (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pheasantpete: As I said yesterday, I try to avoid disputes like this, but I'm willing to argue now just on the principle that you're being unreasonable and unpleasant.

Billmckern (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pheasantpete: Take a look at the expanded lede for the Vessey article and see if it's a satisfactory improvement. I'll continue to improve the body of the article when I'm able.

Billmckern (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Much better with details. No need for casting aspersions with that other intro. If you like intro work take a look at Alaskan Airlines lede. Looks like a corporate piece o crap. Tells how good they are according to JD powers customer satisfaction index (paid for by who) without mentioning their many fatal accidents, history of maintenance malpractice, cost cutting over safety, etc. Makes them look downright safe and respectable. As usual the things they are really know for (killing people) is buried way down. Pheasantpete (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

John I. Slingerland

Thank you for your significant contribution to the John I. Slingerland page.

I'm changing his son's name back to Harmon once again. Harmon is my great-great grandfather, I have his personal records including his death certificate, I lived in his house & I visit his grave. I definitely know his name which is wrong in Burhans Genealogy on both pages referenced. It is correct in the death index. Please leave it as Harmon.

Thanks, Slvirgilio (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Militia Act of 1903

I see that there have been two (1, 2) reverts in under 24 hours. Per WP:DTTR, I am civilly providing this observation on the talk page of the editor of this. While we maybe in a disagreement over the content, I do not want to see the editor blocked.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: Oh, STOP! You're going to block me because you want to unilaterally want to remove relevant, factual content? Have at it, but I can't see you obtaining a consensus for it.

Billmckern (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Militia Act of 1903. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I have attempted to utilize WP:DTTR in the past without success, therefore it has resulted in me utilizing this message. I hope that future edits regarding the different interpretations of the Militia Act of 1903 within the scope of the Gun politics in the United States are fruitful, and done so in a way that provides a balanced representation of all the wide and varied interpretations as it relates to gun politics in the United states. Good'day.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm RightCowLeftCoast. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Militia Act of 1903 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please stop editing against the consensus formed at Talk:Militia Act of 1903#Snopes is NOT a material source for an internet meme that BillMckern doesn't cite to begin with, to validate his section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that User:RightCowLeftCoast doesn't agree with something doesn't mean it's wrong. You can't have a "debate" about the "neutrality" of a question when one side of the discussion is factually inaccurate. Facts are facts. They are not a matter of feeling, opinion or belief. And facts SHOULD trump feelings, opinions, or beliefs. It is simply not debatable that the Dick Act meme is false. IT IS FALSE. IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. One contributor to Wikipedia who finds this FACT inconvenient to his political argument doesn't change the fact.

If you're going to argue that "On the one hand, some say Monday is the best day of the week, on the other hand some say it's Tuesday", THAT'S debatable. If you're going to argue that your BELIEF that there are eight days in a week is equally as valid as the calendar's recording of seven days in a week, that's NOT debatable. And no amount of arguing or complaining that "both sides" aren't being fairly considered will turn your BELIEF into a FACT.

The one who's displaying bad faith here isn't me.

Billmckern (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Erastus W. Jewett

I hope to get this article to B-class at some point soon. Over the weekend I'm goikg to check for more sources and go through the books to ensure the information is accurate and that nothing was left out. _{Vermont | reply here} 17:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'll add another rank insignia in his infobox for his position in the Vermont Militia. _{Vermont | reply here} 17:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: Sounds good. Jewett's article popped up in my watch list the other day and I had some idle time on my hands, so I figured I'd try to make some improvements to the article. Fortunately there were a few pretty comprehensive sources available that were easy to find.

Billmckern (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Wozniak

I edited, however, I'm new and probably did it wrong. So figured I'd let you know since you're great at this. Nauertzy (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Van Buren birth status

To be fair, "first president not born a British subject, nor of British ancestry" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "first post-Independence-born president." I personally think this should be clarified in one area or the other. Just saying. --MegaThruster127 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Cane fighting

Thanks for the help with John Randolph of Roanoke. Brooks v. Sumner is famous enough, and unique in that nobody ever talks about other cane fights between congressmen, that I couldn't trust any assertion of another such fight without sources like you provided. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

BCS S04

I noticed I'd taken it >200 words and was about to prune it, but you beat me to it and did a better job anyway. :-) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 09:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Winner (Better Call Saul)

For the plot of "Winner", you described the lab as being of Gale's design. But I thought Gale said something like, "We need ventilation, but I could make it work for a rudimentary cook." I got the impression Gus was bringing in Gale after the lab was designed. It's not a big deal, but I'm wondering if I missed something? Hoof Hearted (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hoof Hearted: According to this review. "The most stunning new information imparted was that Lavandería Brillante’s transformation into an criminal-architectural marvel was, schematically, Gale’s design..."

This one reads "Gale Boetticher (David Costabile), who meticulously designed the lab per his specifications as lead cook, claims that he can work in the premises anyway, but Gus, ever the perfectionist, counters, "Not until it’s ready.""

I'll check the episode out in detail later today to make sure these reviews are accurate.

Billmckern (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are good sources, but I suspect they're jumping the gun a little bit. Not trying to put too fine a point on it, but perhaps this episode revealed that the lab will become Gale's design. I think the sources you give could be interpretted that way too. It really seemed like that was the first time Gale was even aware of the "superlab". I'd be interested in your take on it after your review. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hoof Hearted: I don't see how the reviewers would be jumping the gun, since they're talking about the events in the present tense. "Is revealed", not "will be revealed", for example.

I'm sold on the idea of the lab being built according to Gale's plan as reasonable description. At the start of the scene, Gale tells Gus "I feel like we've been talking about this forever and now... here it is." Then he says "I mean, it's not exactly what we talked about, but it has possibilities, even unfinished." He adds "Ventilation at this point is the main hurdle", meaning he knows what the lab should have in terms of equipment and sees that it doesn't yet have everything.

To me all of that makes clear that Gus and Gale planned the lab's construction before Gus hired Werner, and since Gale is the expert, he would have provided detailed information about what would be required for a lab like that to be operated successfully. Gale's not coming in to the project at the tail end of the construction, he's clearly been there from the beginning. Sure, Gale doesn't explicitly say "You have constructed this lab according to my specifications", but in context, I think it's obvious that's what happened.

Billmckern (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent work. I had forgotten about Gale's initial comments, and have come to agree with your analysis. It was probably the first time Gale was seeing it with his own eyes, which I mistook for discovery. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Joe McCarthy

You reverted my edit without explanation. The version now up gives somebody's assertion that McCarthy was a poor circuit court judge, and then gives contradictory evidence that he was not. Not very encyclopedic to leave it at he said/he said. And how to resolve this without doing (gasp) original research. Mikedelsol (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mikedelsol: You're reading it wrong. The criticism is of McCarthy's opponent, Judge Werner. It explains how McCarthy was able to beat Werner.

Billmckern (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mikedelsol: See if the minor edits I just made make this point clearer.

Billmckern (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Off Brand

Thanks for picking up my error in confusing the farm with the shop. I had only recalled the shop from my viewing of S1-4 a while back. I quickly read through the wiki summaries for seasons 1-4 to refresh my memory before starting to watch season 5 last night. I'm replacing the 'it' again in the next sentence. Since there are multiple 'bricks' the 'it' doesn't do it.

Welham66 (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Welham66: I believe you'll find that "it" works. The sixth kilo is one item -- "it". In fact, Gus's exact words to Tyrus are "Give it to him."

Billmckern (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The bit I corrected read - '...Victor and Tyrus take out several bricks of cocaine. They bring it .....'. I've replaced 'it' with 'the bricks'. 'It' means a singular brick doesn't it, which disagrees with the plural 'several bricks'. The sixth kilo, which can be referred to as it, hasn't yet been mentioned.

Welham66 (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Welham66: I see what you mean. I referred to the second "it", and you were referring to the first. Your version works.

Billmckern (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Billmckern. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC) ==Seasonal Greetings==

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Billmckern, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Best wishes for a happy 2019

^{The Hill Country (1913) by Walter Elmer Schofield, Woodmere Art Museum.}
Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place.

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

National Guard

I have reverted your edit for the United States National Guard due to the consensus in the Talk Page regarding on how to name the page. I have not doubt of your experience in the field and knowledge from your service within the National Guard, and if I had my way, the article would just be National Guard. However, as you are well aware, here in the wiki community, we form consensus as we did in October 2018. Neovu79 (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Neovu79: The National Guard of the United States is a thing. It's a legal entity. When members of the Air or Army National Guard enlist or receive commissions, they have dual state and federal obligations. When National Guard units get federalized, it's as part of the National Guard of the United States, which means they're no longer subject to state control.

• This isn't a naming convention question or an issue where consensus is required. The National Guard of the United States is the official name of an organization, in accordance with federal law.

• Billmckern (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, I am well aware of U.S. law concerning the National Guard of the United States as an entity. However the WP:COMMONNAME of how this entity perceives itself is just National Guard whether they refer to themselves as the National Guard of a state, or as National Guard of the United States (federal service). Neovu79 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Neovu79: What the hell are we arguing about? The relevant passage from the article, which I'm reading right now is "In 1933, with passage of the National Guard Mobilization Act, Congress finalized the split between the National Guard and the traditional state militias by mandating that all federally funded soldiers take a dual enlistment/commission and thus enter both the state National Guard and the National Guard of the United States..."

The legal name is correctly described where it should be. I don't see a problem.

Billmckern (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit reverted on “Nacho Varga”

My edit on the page “Nacho Varga” this morning was reverted with this explanation :
“This seems like poor phrasing, and I'm not sure it improves on what's already been written.”
What I don't understand on Wikipedia – particularly on english Wikipedia – is that many experienced users apparently have a habit, when they see an edit that they deem imperfect, of removing everything, reverting the whole thing in one click, even when said edit was clearly made in “good faith”, without looking at the detail to verify what may be actually improving the article, and keeping it, while correcting what may be indeed “poor phrasing”, and removing only what is deemed superfluous or blatantly incorrect, on a case-by-case basis (it doesn't take much longer than actually reading what's been changed). Progress on a collaborative encyclopedia, like biological evolution, is supposed to be incremental, yet such an attitude is utterly frustrating for would-be editors and can even discourage from attempting any further editing; if life had evolved with such drastic policies, humans wouldn't have hands, or eyes, let alone brains, for each early attempt at developping those precious organs would have been deemed so poor and unworthy by editors in the Wikipedian Era ! What is the justification of simply erasing about half an hour of free work (sometimes it's much, much more) right away, especially if you're “not sure” ?
I decided to edit this article after reading this :
“Nacho approaches Jimmy about trying steal the money from the Kettlemans, but Jimmy refuses.”
Don't you agree that this is poor phrasing ? If so, why did you let this sentence go back to its former state ? All the other changes I made can be explained – I did not inflate the article with superfluous details, I'm aware that it's supposed to be a summary, but I tried to improve the context of some statements, which, in their current state, convey a wrong impression to a reader not thoroughly familiar with the show. For instance, this sentence :
“Mike left the driver tied up but alive, but learns from Nacho the good Samaritan who freed the driver was killed as part of a Salamanca effort to cover up evidence of the hijacking.”
Apart from the egregious repetition “but ... but”, it conveys the impression that this meeting between Mike and Nacho was friendly, and it fails to convey why it was such a pivotal moment for both characters, or express Nacho's utterly conflicted state of mind toward Mike, whom he considers as a highly reliable ally and yet as a potential threat who has his own motives and his own set of rules. This conflict is central in Nacho's arc, and not even hinting at it makes for a poor depiction in an article dedicated to that character.
Or this :
“Nacho is impressed by Mike's calm demeanor under pressure, and offers to pay him to kill Tuco, whose instability is making the Salamancas' business [more] => [increasingly] difficult to conduct, and [who] => [whom] Nacho fears will find out about his private deals.”
I didn't change much here, but I'm fairly certain that it's an improvement : english isn't my first language but I know that “whom” is the correct form when used as an object complement, and “increasingly” is definitely better to explain why Nacho waited up to that point to take that excruciatingly difficult decision; with “more difficult” it gives the impression that Nacho is the kind of guy who would consider killing his partner in a whim because he deems him a mere inconvenience...
In my opinion the current phrasing is poor because each sentence is utterly bland, lifeless, seemingly disconnected from the others, and the whole thing reads like an instruction manual or a cooking recipe. Is this what is considered good phrasing on Wikipedia ?
--Abolibibelot (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Abolibibelot: I thought some of the edits created overly complicated, run on sentences.

Example: Hector survived but suffered a severe stroke, and Gustavo Fring discovered that this was caused by Nacho's actions, and used this information to blackmail Nacho into secretly working for him to undermine the Salamanca organization.

Example: Mike left the driver tied up but alive, yet he learns from Nacho, who is simultaneously impressed by the deed and angry about its consequences, failing to understand Mike's motives, that the good Samaritan who freed the driver was killed as part of a Salamanca effort to cover up evidence of the hijacking. Later, as Mike is attempting to kill Hector with a sniper rifle, the driver himself is killed by Hector in the presence of Nacho.

Example: Hector bursts in a fit of fury, which provokes an attack, he reaches for his medication, but falls to the ground unconscious.

I could be wrong, but in my view those lines were kind of hard to follow. Generally, I think most readers respond best to short, declarative sentences. If it's a discussion worth continuing, you can certainly bring it to the talk page for the article. But that was my honest, good faith assessment.

Billmckern (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Francis Marion Wright

I won't revert on Francis Marion Wright. While not technically the correct name, it is an acceptable usage per WP:COMMONNAME. I have been doing a long term cleanup of United States federal judge articles, starting with Obama appointee's and eventually reaching back to Washington's appointee's. As a part of that, I have been correcting court names, for example, changing United States District Court for the District of Columbia to Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, its name prior to 1934, for those individuals that served in that era. But in the case of the Court of Claims, United States Court of Claims would be an acceptable usage. In the body of the article, I used both names, so I would be ok with either usage outside the body, such as in the infobox. Safiel (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi! Thanks for the amazing work you've done on Sumter de Leon Lowry Jr.. I noticed you added "url-access=subscription" to a number of references, which seems like useful information. I haven't seen this before, does it make the page act differently? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 10:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jacona: "url-access=subscription" is a new parameter and replaced "subscription=yes". Now instead of seeing the text that a subscription is required, readers see the icon of a locked padlock. it's supposed to let the reader know that a subscription is required in order to view the actual content of the citation.

The old "subscription=yes" parameter was deprecated about two weeks ago. The new "url-access=subscription" parameter replaced it in articles automatically over the last several days thanks to the work of a bot. For articles that already had "subscription=yes" removed manually, or didn't have it included initially, editors will have to enter the new parameter manually. That's what I did with the Lowry article.

Billmckern (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Theater in Calas staging area

Hi!I am sorry, i don't speak English. I don't understand why don't you want to speak about this theater? I think it was really important for all troop to know that even high officer can die in the war. It was not long after he die. The calas staging area is near Marseille and was the biggest in South France. The camp was build after the landing in Provence, and a lot of US singer and entertainment people performed on this theater.Calas (Bouches-du-Rhône)#Époque contemporaine. I think it s important to remember the staging area, and the name of this officer. (Excuse me for my english. If you answer in french it will be nice, but you can answer in english if you cant) Thanks for your answer. --Jpve (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jpve: I don't speak French - I guess I should have paid more attention in junior high and high school French class than I did.

Remind me which article this content came from, and maybe provide a reference, and I'll see if I can turn it into encyclopedic English for you and add it to the article.

Billmckern (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Billmckern: Thanks for your answer. sorry, it's on wp.fr. I don't know how to solve the adress. i'll try to connect you. I try something: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calas_(Bouches-du-Rh%C3%B4ne). https://www.geocaching.com/seek/gallery.aspx?guid=deebd59f-9127-4ba4-9137-349c6bbaad99.

(Myckey Rooney was here)

https://horspistes1.wordpress.com/2017/11/23/14-09-17-the-calas-staging-area/ some photos, one of the enter of the theater

you can try this

Calas it doesent work on preview in France, perhaps its work in USA?

I try for my talk page but it seems not to work. Jpve Jpve (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

給您的星章！

	原星章
	Thanks for your work on the 1948 Senate election. Wikipedia needs this article, and I'm shocked Wikipedia didn't have it yet. Thanks again! Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Likewise. I'll probably do a bio article of Porter in the near future. I'm also trying to find a decent illustration of him. Everything I've seen so far is too low quality for Wikimedia Commons.

Billmckern (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Jeremiah Black

Just wondering why the delete på update I was attempting on his early life. The present early life information is incorrect. He was born in Stony Creek Township in Somerset County, Pennsylvania in an area known as the Glades. His family has a family burial plot on one side of Route 31 at Brotherton and there is a large, fine memorial to him on the other side of Route 31 there. You will find this by doing some Google checks. I hope you or someone interested then can correct his early life information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothersvalley (talk • contribs) 09:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia showed an incorrect reference tags error message - I think one was missing the "/ref" code within the < > brackets.

Billmckern (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Onslow S. Rolfe

Hello Billmckern,

I noticed you reverted my edit on page Onslow S. Rolfe. I added a list of his distinguished classmates of general Rolfe from the USMA at West Point from the official websites West Point Association of Graduates, where is possible to locate Class 1917 members. So I do not agree, that there is no reference. Anyway I agree with you, that there was a lot of red links, but I am working on it and I had created three articles in last five days regarding these links. Maybe we can find agreement on some shorter list of classmates.

By the way if you check articles Mark W. Clark, Matthew B. Ridgway, J. Lawton Collins, Norman D. Cota and others from my edit, you will find out, that there are really graduates of Class 1917. So that is undoubtfull.

I intend to revert your edit back, but before that, I would like to discuss it with you. Please send me your opinion about it.

Thank you for your cooperation

AntonyZ (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@AntonyZ: I question the relevance of naming so many classmates simply for the sake of naming them. That's also a lot of red links - the usual process is to create the articles first to show that someone is prominent enough to rate an article. But even if I'm wrong about those points, your addition had no references - that's a lot of info to not include a source. At a minimum, if you're going to do this, I suggest including only the ones that have articles already (blue links), adding a reference or references, and maybe providing details about why the connections between the classmates is relevant.

Billmckern (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Breaking Bad & Better Call Saul characters [20191020]

You're extremely quick to revert, it's even hard to believe that a human can be so quick when processing information through the brain... Last night I made a series of edits on several pages related to the Breaking Bad / Better Call Saul universe, and (as usual ?) most of them were quickly reverted with no explanation whatsoever. When I reverted some of those reversions, you re-reverted (a split second later !), adding a blanket comment about "extraneous details". But who decides which details are integral and which are extraneous ? It could be argued that having dedicated articles for each episode of a TV series is already way extraneous. A plot summary should be either very short (2-3 lines) and merely provide the basic elements of the storyline, or it should stand on its own and provide enough detail to make sense for someone who hasn't seen the episode in question, and knows virtually nothing about the characters, their motivations and prior interactions. Most of the time the plot summaries I find on Wikipedia are somewhere in between, too long for quick reference, and missing important details to actually make sense as standalone recaps, so one has to wonder what their purpose is. I simply added details which I felt were missing, or some extra connective words to make it "flow" better — or in some cases I corrected information which was just plain wrong. For instance "Wiedersehen" in the context of the episode with that name doesn't mean "See you again", which is a rough literal translation; it definitely means "goodbye", as explained later in the article. And the interpretation by which that word foreshadows Werner's death is certainly valid — I know, for such a statement a reliable source should be provided (I would need to search for articles recapping the whole season since most reviews for that episode were made right after its initial broadcast, hence with no knowledge of upcoming events). But the same could be said about the name Juan Bolsa supposedly being a nod to The Sopranos' Johnny Sack, a statement which is not sourced in the article on BB/BCS characters and for which I added a "citation needed" tag, which disappeared following your reversion. (By the way, I made three series of edits on that article, I'm wondering why you were so magnanimous as to keep the other two.) Also, I duly noted that I made a typo when writing "Sleepin' Jimmy" (stupid really as I checked the exact wording on a subtitle file right before I typed it — must have been my subconscious urging me to go the f##k to sleep), but what about "Brock Cantillol", which I corrected ("Cantillo") and which reappeared following your reversion ? It's seriously frustrating. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative work, each (good faith) edit being a step toward global improvement; even if one particular edit is not perfect, it still brings something to the table, and the minimal courtesy before bluntly deleting a work which sometimes took hours is to consider every contribution on its own right, and ponder why someone made the effort to make it, and in the cases where it does improve ever-so-slightly what was there before, even if there's a typo or a clumsy wording somewhere (not all contributors are native speakers), keep what's relevant, polish it if necessary, and find a way to "make room" for it. Granted, it takes more effort than just hitting the "Undo" button, but I'd argue that it's worth it in the long run — if the cosmic powers-that-be had reverted every single "extraneous" evolution since life appeared on Earth it wouldn't have evolved much beyond the vegetal (but according to Emil Cioran, who wrote that "the Sun should have frown at the advent of the first insect and fled at the irruption of the first chimpanzee", it would have been for the best, and something in me tends to agree with him, considering how flawed and nefarious we are as a species... we're all "chimpanzees with machine guns" in a way ! but I digress).--Abolibibelot (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

A Place on Wikipedia

We are here only for a brief time. Thought you might appreciate the award on your user page. Btw, thank you for your service to our nation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: Thanks for the kind words.

Billmckern (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi Billmckern. I'm guess you were a bit confused by my edit to Adam Schiff and thought I was removing a newspaper reference when I was only removing ethnicelebs.com. Ethnicelebs.com is not a reliable source. See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ronz: Correct - At first read, I thought the references being removed were reliable ones. I missed the Ethnicelbs.

Billmckern (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

I can't thank you enough for all of the help you have given me with the recent articles I have made on former Burlington mayors. I would give you a barnstar, but it seems that you have already been recognized enough. :) Jon698 Jon698 21:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jon698: Thanks. My particular interests are US military and political history, especially Vermont and New York. I've done bios for Vermont's adjutants general, statewide officeholders, and Supreme Court justices. I'm currently working on and off on bios for Vermont's US Attorneys. After that, maybe Vermont's US marshals.

Billmckern (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your revert

Your revert

One of several sources! --Хрюша 21:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)