Maurice Magnus

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don't Look Back (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Maurice Magnus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Frederick Douglass that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Edits, such as this edit is not minor. Graywalls (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, when you're leaving comments for others, please do so on their talk page. The user page is not for other people to leave messages. If it's a discussion specific to a certain article, that discussion should generally go on the "Talk" tab of the article. Thanks. Graywalls (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pietro Aretino, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Gloria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I had wanted to add a link pointing to "La Gloria (Titian)," but the painting is not titled "La Gloria (Titian)"; it is titled "La Gloria." Therefore, I linked it to "La Gloria," but first, on the "La Gloria" entry, I added "La Gloria (Titian)" to the list of entries to which "La Gloria" might refer. (That should have been there anyway.) Now, the reader of "Pietro Aretino" who clicks on "La Gloria" will see the list of entries to which "La Gloria" might refer and will then click on "La Gloria (Titian)." Is there a better way to accomplish what I intended?Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Disregard my previous comment. I figured out how to link "La Gloria" to the Wikipedia entry for "La Gloria (Titian)," and I did so.Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Maurice Magnus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Addition of contents as "minor edit". Adding links, or comments like Special:Diff/1014086478 is not considered minor for Wikipedia purposes. Graywalls (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I try to be careful about that. Did you mean Frederick Douglass? The link you provide is to Allen Guelzo. If you meant Douglass, which edit did I mislabel as "minor"? If you meant Guelzo, then I'm surprised that adding that a book is forthcoming is not minor, but I'll remember for the future that it is. Suppose that I'd changed the year of publication because a previous editor erred? Would that be minor?Maurice Magnus (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

basically, adding any link is not a minor. Also change like Special:Diff/1014746436 is best not marked minor, because the addition of word like "objectionable" could change the meaning and potentially be contentious. It's basically for punctuations and spelling and coding errors. "minor" on Wikipedia has very specific meanings, as given in the template. By the way, I see you're working in a lot of authors. Do you happen to have any professional relationship for the edits you are making? Graywalls (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've now read the template and understand when to use minor. I see that you made the same point to me last September, but this time I get it. I'm not sure what you mean by "professional relationship," but I think that the answer is no. I am a retired lawyer and editor with a wide range of interests, but the only legal person I've edited, as far as I recall, is Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and I've mostly just added to his bibliography and copyedited. I have a slight personal (not professional) acquaintance with one person whom I've edited -- Frederick Crews -- and this past February another editor, RudolfRed, informed me (in Teahouse) that I should therefore not be editing him, so I've stopped.Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anthony Trollope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Norton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I fixed it. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. There is something peculiar about MacGreevy's/McGreevy's name. His Wikipedia entry says "Thomas MacGreevy (born Thomas McGreevy," but it says nothing about the change or when it occurred. Richard Aldington's Wikipedia entry names the book MacGreevy/McGreevy wrote: Richard Aldington: An Englishman. Amazon.com has a photo of the cover of that book showing the author's name as "McGreevy." Either he didn't change it until after he wrote that book, or he used both spelling simultaneously. Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message. I think this is best put on his talk page so that future editors can explore the confusions. Thanks for your attention to the biog. Best wishes. Anna (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I pasted my above comment on MacGreevy's talk page (with minor edits). Thanks for the suggestion. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your continued work on his page. Anna (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited D. H. Lawrence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heinemann.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Parameter "succession" is not the same as parameter "caption". In "caption" you can add "Portrait by Raphael, 1518", but not in "succession". In fact, I undid your edit for this reason, not to discuss if Lorenzo was lord or not. Lord, ruler, or whatever you want, I'll change "Lord of Florence" to "Ruler of Florence". The url you added, I'll put it on the painting page on Commons. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, great!. Here is the painting on Commons. The url provided there is broken (dead link), so I added the url of The Met. Tajotep (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry haha. Yes yes. If you click on the painting inside the infobox, it get closer (it takes up all your PC screen). Then, you click on "more details" (lower right corner), and it redirects you to the file in Commons. You can do this with every image on Wikipedia. Also, in "External links" you can find an url to Commons. All right? I added the url on Commons in "Summary --> Source/Photographer". If you want to add it on Wikipedia, use <ref></ref> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources), it looks a little bit ugly if you do this. Tajotep (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abolitionism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Oakes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The music subsection is part of the 'Memory and histiography' section. In that, there is much about commemoration. There is nowhere to say that the music listed should only be contemporaneous. Therefore, The Band's seminal song should definitely be included. Boscaswell talk 00:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for accepting my edit, Magnus. Boscaswell talk 01:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This analysis of current expert sourcing was an eye-opener for me. My bold edit today with which you disagreed was a first draft at expressing such thought. BusterD (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello and thank you for engaging regarding the "further reading" section on the article on Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. My removal of the link you added was inspired by the article Wikipedia:Further reading which notes, "A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article." Although Dr. Holmes is covered in Matteson's book about the Battle of Fredericksburg, it does not seem that he is a main subject, as you yourself noted in one of your edit summaries. I apologize if I implied that I was making that edit based merely on the title of the book, as you have suggested. Of course, now that I'm looking at it more carefully, I see that the bigger problem is that you were listing that book under "references" when, in fact, the article does not reference it whatsoever. Thank you again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I had listed it under References because there was no Bibliography or Further Reading. Should I have started one for a single book? I won't bother to do so for this book, because Holmes is not a main subject of it. By the way, is there a difference between Bibliography and Further Reading? They both list books not used as References, I suppose, but they can list books used as References if there is no References section, right? At Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I recently changed the heading from Further Reading to Bibliography because it contained books that had been used as references, and there was no References section. I am confused. Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the future, please do not edit my user profile. We have talk pages for a reason. To respond to your inquiry, no, it's probably not a good idea to add a whole new further reading section for a single book. It does seem, nevertheless, that the list of references on that particular article provide substantial reading material. There does not seem to be a single standard across all articles regarding "bibliography" vs. "further reading", etc., but I would note that editors are particularly cautious in protecting featured articles such as the one on Dr. Holmes and, as such, will be quick to revert any questionable edits. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info, and I will remember the distinction between user and talk pages. I first posted this on your talk page, and by mistake put it under an old exchange we had about Walt Whitman instead of creating a new subject. But it is not necessary to go to your talk page, right? I can reply on my own talk page, as I'm doing now. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Deaths in 2022 page aims to be as succinct as possible with the entries. We don't need every name a person had been known as, we just need either the article name, or if a redlink the name they were known as. If he's DJ Delete, that's all that's needed. Please stop re-adding an additional name. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

My point was to highlight the fact this is not a practice you'd see. DJ Kay Slay isn't listed with a notation that his real name is Keith Grayson, we just use the article name, which is the one they were best known as. Doesn't make one "parsimonious", rather just keeping in step with the common format practice. Rusted AutoParts 02:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hi Maurice Magnus! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Abraham Lincoln several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Abraham Lincoln, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I added text and references to the article. Interesting person, but outside my area of expertise (biochemistry). David notMD (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of content on your User page that belonged on your Talk page. I suggest you just delete it rather than move it, as appears to pertain to old discussions. See Wikipedia:User pages for what UPs are for. Separately, you are within your rights to delete (or archive) content from your Talk page, so consider some clean-up there. David notMD (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some of the stuff on my user page pertains to old discussions, but I put it on my user page to save as instructions to myself as to how to do things. Would it be all right to move them to my Sandbox, which I don't otherwise use? Maurice Magnus (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is a better idea. I frequently use my Sandox for works in progress and notes to myself. David notMD (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your cleanup at American Civil War. Sorry that it was necessary to that extent. I was just reviewing my most recent edits and noticed far too many typos and other minor errors, plus a few sentences that could be added and a few minor additions that could be made. You got the ones before my latest ones, where most of the little glitches actually were. You may wish to give it a further review after I complete a further review and a few small additions. By the way, at least I didn't put the word "completely" in the lead, but on the other hand, I didn't think to remove it. Donner60 (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Amended the previous comment a little. Also, the changes I just made were only in the End of the War section so you don't need to scout them out if you wish to review them. Donner60 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I made footnote 2 less confusing, but it remains confusing. I changed it to read, "A diary excerpt is published in Gienapp, William E., ed. The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001, pp. 313-314 ISBN 978-0-393-97555-0. Taken from Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas, eds., The Diary of George Templeton Strong, vol. 2 (New York: The McMillan Company), pp. 600-601; vol. 3, p. 14."

One source of confusion was periods instead of commas between an author's or editor's name and a book. I changed the periods to commas. If pp. 600-601 refers to vol. 2 of The Diary, then what does vol. 3, p. 14 refer to? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I did receive the alert but I am just signing in for the first time since you posted your messages. I can see why this might cause confusion. Strangely enough, the wording after the word "Taken" is verbatim from a footnote in the Gienapp book on page 313, including the punctuation. I copied it without thinking about why it would be spread out over two volumes. I now notice that the quotations from the Templeton diary shown in the Gienapp book actually are three small entries from June 29, 1865, May 22, 1865 and May 29 of the diaries, in that order. I assume the footnote is showing that the quoted excerpts are from pp. 600-601 of volume 2 of the edited diary publication and p. 14 of volume 3, without designating the quotes which came from each volume. I think it is safe to assume that the quote from volume 3 is actually the first excerpt, the one from the latest date of the three. I was only referring to the quote from May 29, which crosses over from page 313 to page 314 of Gienapp. Probably the best way to handle this is simply to delete "vol 3, p. 14" based on that assumption. I will do that as soon as I post this reply. Thanks for noticing that and letting me know. If you see anything else that needs editing please let me know or just change it if is something that is obviously in need of correction and does not affect the substance. Donner60 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Donner60, not having a copy of the diary, I can't fully follow your explanation, but I trust you, and I will not edit it. I found the text of the diary, but I can't find pp. 600-601: George Templeton Strong diary, 1835-1875 | New York Historical Society | Digital Collections (nyhistory.org). Perhaps you will find this useful and might want to add a link to the footnote in American Civil War. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have been offline, mainly due to a severe leg muscle injury which is now swelling. I will have a further test as soon as later today. I may well have little opportunity to spend much time online as I recover. It is going to require physical therapy at a minimum. As to the subject at hand, I have found the actual online page and added an explanation to the footnote that Gienapp took the quote from an edited version of the diaries. I added the citation to the actual web page on the New York Historical Society and noted that the actual diaries have different volume and page numbers. Thanks for helping me clarify this. I hope it is now better, if a bit lengthy for a citation. I didn't even add the quote for that one.

Also, I have added a footnote to the end of the war section. I have made a few, probably unnecessary, additions to the talk page threads. I have answered two questioners in the next section on the talk page. I probably should not have bothered because it took some time and the questioners rather obviously paid no attention to the talk page threads setting out the research. Or they simply were unwilling to accept the result. Other articles need corrections, additions and even creation so I will probably not work much more, if at all, on this one.

I have been having computer delays and glitches in addition to real life events. I think I probably have a failing hard drive on top of everything else, making it difficult to bring up pages and ultimately to save edits. I don't like to complain about such personal things on Wikipedia but I have been online almost every day that I haven't given advance notice that I would not be for many years. In the past few years, real life, a few technical problems with Wikipedia and some computer problems have reduced my time online, sometimes unexpectedly. For the few people I regularly interact with, I have thought I should give an explanation for the absences occasionally, usually on my user page. Donner60 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your edit to Peter Swales (historian). You don't have named refs quite correct yet: you name and define a source once, then all you have to do later in the article is call the named ref. (You redefined the ref on both uses.)

First time: <ref name=example>{{cite web | url=something.com | title=something | website=something | access-date=8 August 2022}}</ref>

The next time you want to use the same ref, you just use: <ref name=example />

Note the closing slash in the ref tag.

Hope that helps! Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I changed the second time I used the same ref in the manner you instructed. But this has no effect on the article; it merely shortens what appears in "Edit source." Also, I noticed that, in Peter Swales (historian), the other places where a ref name is used, the second time that the same ref is used, it is in quotation marks. I experimented, using "Show preview," and found that the quotation marks have no effect. I used them anyway, but why do others use them? Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The problem with repeating the definition of the ref is that it's nonstandard; if another editor needs to make an update or correction to the ref (such as adding an archive-url), other editors would not know to look for multiple places to fix it because there should only be one definition for that named ref. And as soon as there is the slightest difference between the definitions, there would be a cite error because the same name would be attached to different definitions.

The quotation marks are necessary when the name assigned to the ref contains numbers, punctuation, or spaces. They're not needed when the name is only letters. Some editors use the quotation marks anyway, possibly just to be in the habit so they are there when needed.

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Your explanations are clear and helpful. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

At least in British English, which is what the article is using (I've had to correct you on that already) "London's National Gallery" is horrible journalese, and redundant, as only London has a plain "National Gallery" (NG) - DC has the NGA. Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

To me, as an American, "London's National Gallery" sounds fine, but, in deference to you, in the list of poesie at Titian, I just changed

• The Death of Actaeon, now in London's National Gallery, begun in 1559 but worked on for many years and never completed or delivered^[1] to
• The Death of Actaeon, now in the National Gallery in London, begun in 1559 but worked on for many years and never completed or delivered^[2]

Yesterday, I clicked on User talk:Johnbod and posted a comment and it appeared on User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. Justlettersand numbers replied. Are you and he or she the same person? I don't need to know, actually; it just seems strange. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your addition of July 5th! to Frederick Douglas is WP:TOOSOON. The only citation was Mailchimp, which is hardly a reliable source. Neither the playwright, Ken Green, nor the musical director, Eve Wolf, have Wikipedia articles, so therefore we can assume that they, as well as the play, are not notable. Peaceray (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Donner60 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Victorine Meurent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross King.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just fyi, I have taken this on for Wikipedia:The Core Contest, so will be rewriting it, probably completely, over the next couple of months, so any changes made now are probably not going to be in the eventual version, Best Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Short answer to your question is as follows. Copyvio is in fact copyright violation. The edits belonged to User:Billy Hathorn, who was banned after violating just about everything (copyright violations being the prime thing). Most of the content added has been proven to either be a copyright issue, a POV issue, trivial content, or something along those lines, with the issues being far-reaching enough that we have to automatically assume that any content is bad (checking every source to cross examine every edit he did is impossible, unfortunately). If you're sure the material's clean then you could restore it (one of the pieces I removed was partially an attributed quote which is probably fine to restore), though you're technically taking responsibility for that material. In the end my removal of the material was a combination of both reasons; if the issues weren't so bad to have required a ban I would've either actively looked for the source or left it. Wizardman 16:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's two reasons, the one I had when I made the remark, and the one I'm about to put as #2. But I already wrote up my bit for #1, so here it is:

1. The term "African American" is used because people of African American descent cannot trace their lineage any better than "Africa", because they are descended from slaves. That's the primary reason for why the usage is so much politically, culturally, and even morally different than "White American" or "European American". So to say that they "enslaved African Americans" is to use ... okay, sure, the term existed back then, but it's unlikely it had the same meaning and connotation as it does today. And if it did, ... it's still kind of cart-chasing-horse. IMO it's improper to say that "they enslaved African Americans" because people are African American because of slavery. Had slavery not happened, the term "African American" would not have happened, so it's improper to say that they enslaved them.
2. But, I just realized, they literally weren't American. Slaves did not have automatic citizenship until the 14th amendment, and Dred Scott had held [simplified] that slaves weren't citizens. So to call them "African Americans" appears outright incorrect. By the legal standards in play at the time, they were not American, except in the generic "someone in the western hemisphere," which I'm assuming is not what is intended. --Golbez (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Maurice Magnus! Your additions to Clarence Thomas have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I posted a comment on the Spinoza talk page, which you might be interested in. Amuseclio (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)AmuseclioReply

Thanks for letting me know. I will not have access to my philosophy books until October, so I will not pursue this now. But I just googled and saw that Britannica says, "Benedict de Spinoza, Hebrew forename Baruch, Latin forename Benedictus, Portuguese Bento de Espinosa." I wouldn't oppose changing it to "Benedictus de Spinoza," but I don't think that it's necessary, because the opening sentence already says that he's mostly known under the name "Benedictus de Spinoza." It doesn't mention "Bento," however, so maybe that should be worked in. They're all the same name, so I'm not sure that it's important. I suspect (without evidence) that his parents, being Jewish, named him "Baruch," and that he used the Latin or the Portuguese as occasions warranted. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Your edit to Louisa May Alcott has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. You can't just dodge copyright restrictions by adding quotation marks. You need to rewrite the content whenever possible, which it was here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

on Abraham Lincoln with this edit and this edit? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shearonink (talk The first one has already been undone by another editor. See Wikipedia:Teahouse - Wikipedia. The second one was merely adding a Wikilink. Was there something wrong with that? I won't object to any edits you choose to make. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was curious about the *why* of your changes, I know you had a reason, it's just that your changes took away the "archived from" and other useful information. Was it because the previous citation, the old version of the cite web, didn't Wikilink Thomas Owens Mackubin's name to his WP article? Looks like this latest one (with the linkage you added) took care of that missing info. Shearonink (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shearonink (talk) I wanted to be able to get rid of the statement "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." As I explained at the Teahouse,

In the section on Emancipation Proclamation in Abraham Lincoln appears the statement "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6." That was not true, because, although the first link in footnote 225 did not work, the archived link did. But I edited the footnote to get rid of the first link. Now I'd like to get rid of "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line 6," but I don't see it when I go to "Edit source."

I have no objection to Sungodtemple's restoring the previous citation. My goal was to get rid of the Error statement, and Sungodtemple did that. My inserting the Wikilink was an afterthought, not the reason for my initial action, and I inserted it in a separate edit. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, ok...see I knew you had a reason! Sungodtemple fixed one Error and I fixed the other. It actually wasn't an issue with the cite. I saw those Error messages and ran it down from the edit history. Another editor ran ReFill 2 and that created those 2 "Error: No valid link was found at the end of line..." Errors. Those were actually both errors on the maps, ReFill 2 removed needed Wikilinks, you can see where that all happened with this edit. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your edit changed "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history." to "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as the greatest president in American history." with your edit summary being "The sentence says that he is "often," not "always" ranked the greatest."
Your edit summary doesn't make complete sense to me. The previous statement was "one of the greatest" meaning not "THE greatest". All of the polls mentioned in the article body under Historical reputation say that Lincoln is always ranked/rated in the top three US Presidents - doesn't that mean he's is among the greatest and not your edit that changed his ranking to "the greatest"? I want to adjust the present wording back to the previous text but don't want to edit war. Let's discuss. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It goes without saying that Lincoln is among the greatest presidents or one of the greatest presidents. The top dozen presidents might be said to be among the greatest, but Lincoln is more than that. Historical rankings of presidents of the United States, referring to four C-SPAN surveys, states, "Abraham Lincoln has taken the highest ranking in each survey and George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Theodore Roosevelt have always ranked in the top five." Therefore, I think that it is accurate to say that Lincoln is often (not always) ranked as the greatest. If you're not comfortable with that, then let's compromise with "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as among the three greatest presidents in American history, the other two being Washington and FDR." Actually, I'd prefer, "as among the three greatest, if not the greatest president in American history, the other two being Washington and FDR," but I won't insist on that. I don't mean to dictate the exact words in this comment, but only my general thoughts. Maurice Magnus (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

My personal opinion aside, I want to avoid possible hagiographic language in Wikipedia's voice and rely on the sources cited in the text in the Historical reputation section. Ref #377, The Federalist Society source, states in their various Charts & Tables for Scholars' Ratings for Lincoln: Table 3 #1, Chart 2 #2, Table 1 #2. Ref #379, the 2011 Gallup source for the public's ranking of the Presidents, has Lincoln as generally #2 and by political party as #3 by Republicans, #1 by Independents, and #5 by Democrats. Ref #380, the 2004 book Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House, has Lincoln ranked as #2. The C-SPAN Surveys of historians mentioned in the "Historical rankings" article has Lincoln ranked at #1 while the USPC/British historians poll also mentioned there has FDR at the overall #1 spot.

I think an adjusted text of "Lincoln is often ranked in both popular and scholarly polls as one of the greatest presidents in American history." more fully reflects the cited sources and all the various polls. - Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your "adjusted text" is what I reverted, so you seem unwilling to compromise. I'll suggest another compromise that I hope you'll find acceptable. Just add "very" before "greatest." "One of the greatest," as I said, goes without saying. Therefore, it doesn't tell readers anything they don't know. "One of the greatest" could mean that he is among the top dozen. "One of the very greatest" makes readers think of the top few, maybe the top three or four, I think. If you'll go along with adding "very," then please make the edit, and you don't need to write to me again. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that I appeared unwilling to compromise - my bad. Your latest version of the text hits the sources & polls spot-on & is better than my suggestion. Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for making the edit. It's good to put this behind us. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

you deleted my lincoln edits and i just want clarification if the info itself is afoul or something else NotQualified (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

In which article? I don't see it in Abraham Lincoln. Maurice Magnus (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

hey, i think i clicked on the wrong user apologies! NotQualified (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You say in "Legal positivism" Talk that you are "no longer competent to discuss Kelsen or Hart, whom I haven't read since the 1980s, or Raz, whom I've never read". Presumably, neither are you familiar with the considerable literature about each of these. With respect, how are you sufficiently informed to contribute to that article? Errantios (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you think that my edits contain errors, you're free to correct them. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Finally, many bibliographies throughout Wikipedia have reviews of books that they list.

Where? I've rarely seen this, and only where the review was worth citing as a relevant source. For an article like the Paris Commune, we're already awash in sources. czar 22:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, being around this long, surely you know better than to edit war when your contribution is reverted. czar 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

With regard to our recent discussion on my talk page about the placement of punctuation at the end of quoted material: I happened to run across this rather lengthy essay about the matter by a WP editor, which may (or may not) interest you. Deor (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This isn't a "style edit" as your edit summary claims, it is a different statement. Both are I think true, but they might not be. The whole passage is unrefed, so I will let it go. But I have noticed a tendency for this kind of thing in your fiddly edits. Please be more careful. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Johnbod (talk) I see your point. I think that "more widespread" means that Michelangelo had an influence in more places than did Raphael, and I don't know whether that's true. But, whether or not it's true, "exceeded" is true, because "exceeded" encompasses "more widespread." Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. It's also a move to more Latinate vocabulary, which is very often a step in the wrong direction (Wikipedia:Use plain English). But as so often with your edits, I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to fiddle with the prose, given a lack of subject knowledge. So many of your edits seem to be like this. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Maurice Magnus, Templates for citations are very important for formatting, and tracking, citations. Once you get the hang of templating or build complex articles, you'll see how important they are and how important it is to maintain them. Also, a lot of the best of the automated Wikipedia maintenance is done with the templates. For example, maintaining citation integrity. Wishing you the best. Wtfiv (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ-a2KeyCAY&t=262 Polygnotus (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stumbled across this article and saw no real lead. Was curious why he had an article at all. I saw you were doing some work improving this article and I'm glad. But would you mind giving the article a lead sentence which explains to the reader why he has an article about him? The article doesn't make it clear yet. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

BusterD (talk) Good idea. I've done it; see if you think it is adequate. Maurice Magnus (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping me to see it. I've added some context. It's an interesting subject. BusterD (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can see I muffed it a bit. I can't figure why the son of Maine residents becomes a North Carolina legislator. Carpetbagging? This guy seemed all in on the enslavement. BusterD (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

BusterD (talk) We don't know whether he was guilty. Jonathan White doesn't say whether he was, and he told me personally that he doesn't know. I read White's book over a year ago, so I don't remember whether he allegedly outfitted more than one slave ship, but, as far as I recall, he was charged only with respect to one. Also, I like the Oxford comma, if you don't mind. :-) Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall how he ended up in NC, and I don't recall that he was "all in on the enslavement." He was a strange character, impossible to figure out 150 years later.Maurice Magnus (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which makes him a really fun subject for Wikipedia, so long as he's not a hoax (and this guy is real). On the Union side, I long ago discovered the French lady, who is another interesting rich kid of the ACW. BusterD (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Building ships for the slave trade implies a willingness to profit from it. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

BusterD (talk) I didn't know about the French lady, but, I've read about the reverse situation. Albert D. J. Cashier, who fought for the Union and died in 1915 at the age of 71 was really Jennie Hodgers, who was one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of women who disguised themselves as men in order to fight in the Civil War. She was unusual because, after she returned to civilian life, she continued to live as a man. There is a chapter on her in Final Resting Places: Reflections on the Meaning of Civil War Graves, co-edited by Jonathan White.