Hello, Montalban. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 03:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nymf _hideliho! 06:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help.

Montalban (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I re-edited the article to put back in

In 1831 Thomas and his family were nearly caught up in the slave revolt of Nat Turner. Whilst some repressive acts were enforced following the crushing of the revolt, Thomas took the lesson another way, seeing that slavery was so vile an institution that it had forced the slaves to act in violence.^[1]

Yes, Turner was mentioned in the previous article, but nothing about Thomas' life-changing reaction to slavery following the revolt

Montalban (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you at least for putting the information in the correct location. Please provide a page number citation or remove it. It is unfortunate that Bobrick is now introduced as a reference to the article because his book is really a substandard biography and I have avoided citing him up until now. I have balanced his opinion with that of a more reliable biographer, IMHO. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of references given on the General G. Thomas entry that only have an author, such as "Einolf". I think these need to be proper (more academic) references, with book title and publisher details.

Thanks for the page number. These are abbreviated cites that are read in conjunction with the full publication details in the References section, as we do in hundreds of ACW articles. See User:Hlj/CWediting#Citations and Footnotes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just so you know, on en.wikipedia, User:Hlj literally wrote the manual of style for military biography. So if Hal makes a suggestion as it regards style, he knows what we've been doing better than anyone. Doesn't necessarily mean he's correct in every circumstance, but he's an extremely respected editor in this interest area. Just FYI. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to discuss issues in talkspace as opposed to via personal message. No offense intended. I agree Cimprich was a disappointing read. I was hoping for more than a half page devoted to his upbringing. Sorry I couldn't provide more or better help. BusterD public (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame this fellow. He started the hero worship. The Lost Causers developed this entire mythology about Lee. Lee was a special soldier and demonstrated his enormous resourcefulness and value as early as 1847. His successful ACW campaigns gave him a legendary status. But if Lee had been born at Arlington instead of Stratford, he might have stayed in the Union Army and the war would have likely lasted a much shorter time. And but for a horseshoe nail (so to speak), it might have been W.W. Loring, not Jackson, who became Stonewall. But as my late father used to say, if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bust his ass a'hoppin'. BusterD (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm living the adage of 'learning a new thing every day'. Montalban (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my whole life, brother. Thanks for the morsel. BusterD (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like some help? LoveMonkey (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison of the papal infallibility theory before 1870 with the "co-redemptrix" title of the Mother of God today is a good one. The co-redemptrix theory is not yet (if it ever will be) a Church doctrine now, but only a theory that (some) Catholic theologians hold and that they explain in different ways, and that other Catholic theologians deny on different grounds. If it is ever raised to the status of Church doctrine, the definition of the doctrine will clarify in what sense the Theotokos can be called co-redemptrix, as happened in 1870 when the theory that (some) theologians had been maintaining was clarified, so that the Church doctrine excludes the idea that every doctrinal statement by a pope is infallible.

Would you please explain what is "the English remonstrance to Parliament" that you write about? What were the English remonstrating about? Was it during Pitt's first or his second period as Prime Minister? Since you say Pitt was making suggestions to the remonstrators with a view to granting Catholic emancipation, they surely weren't remonstrating against the Act of Union with Ireland, passed during Pitt's first period as Prime Minister, or were they? Esoglou (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what they're writing about - you even changed the article (improving it) by adding in that it was about Catholic Emancipation. Montalban (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just don't know what the English (which English?) were remonstrating about. Please let me know. Esoglou (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha!

Montalban (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 06:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]