User talk:Roam41

Welcome!

Hello, Roam41, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of "most decorated" Audie Murphy

Roam41:

It seems you and I agree with the "most decorated" and "leave as is/or change" topic from a month or so ago. I penned a pretty good argument for this subject but it was quickly archived on page 3 in the archives section. If you get a moment will you check it out, read it and give your insight/input into my argument. I would appreciate it. I think it is titled "Sourcing of "most decorated". Thanks! Audiesdad (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Connor

In a word, WOW! Among other things, the link to the Kentucky House joint resolution is no longer valid. I found a copy at another url. The Rhode Island Assembly also passed a resolution about Connor. Go Figure. I think the best place to talk is at Talk:Garlin Murl Conner#Correct medal count; I started the section and flagged it as empty. I don't have access to MUSE from where I sit, although I can see the first page of the article; my research tool is GALILEO. I've asked a librarian friend if she can access it. I don't know why we can't cite the Military Board of Corrections report unless it marked as being not releasable. Same applies to Ridenour; anyone who does have access can verify your citations.

One of the things that bothered me back when is that so many of the references said essentially the same thing. Nature of the beast.

Let's get this right.

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'm glad you are open to a discussion! Roam41 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussions

Please stop starting discussions of the same topic in multiple places, this is very confusing, pick one page and mention any other articles that are related in that discussion. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to have confused the situation. I originally thought the edits in question were made on just one page, then later found them elsewhere. I wasn't sure of the proper way to proceed and debated how to do it. I will only post on one page in the future and provide links. Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. Roam41 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Roam41. 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)[reply]

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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Star edit

Hello, I see that you are the most recent editor on the Silver Star page. I just made a Wikipedia account in hopes to add my Great Uncle to the list of recipients. I have the official letter and documentation for his award. Can I make the change? Is there anywhere I need to add the documents for proof? Mathforlife (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you removed someone’s addition due to them not having a page on the recent edit. Should I make a page for my Great Uncle first? Mathforlife (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @Mathforlife: The key drivers for Wikipedia are sourcing and notability. Silver Star recipients are not likely notable, so there's no point in trying to make an article about your Great Uncle. And since he is not notable, there is no point in trying to add him to a list because we only list notable subjects. Regarding sourcing, we cannot accept primary sources like the documentation you mention. You cannot upload those things here nor would we accept a document uploaded to a third party like FlickR. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and you probably don't have that. I am sure that sounds disappointing when you came here for representation. I think you misunderstand Wikipedia because that's not what we do here. You are better off putting this material on a Facebook account where you'll reach an audience and without worrying about our many rules. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Chris.

There are records in the Hall of Valor Project as well as the National Archives for his enlistment and award. I would like to expand Wikipedias database and accuracy. There are currently 8 recipients on the Silver Star page who have no individual page. I believe I have enough information to make a small individual page for my Uncle but even if I were to not due to notability I still believe he and others should be recognized for their reward. So I would like to add him to the list of recipients.

Here are some external sources and like I said I do have the original letter/document of the award.

https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/132610

——-

https://aad.archives.gov/aad/print-record-detail.jsp?dt=893&mtch=70&cat=all&tf=F&q=Elmer+peterson&bc=&sort=24996%20desc&rpp=10&pg=4&rid=2891923&rlst=2034403,6714910,8034635,8032626,6686942,1413896,8109984,280477,2891923,5153940 74.70.173.14 (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we only list notable recipients and we don't prefer primary sources like you've listed. You are wrong to say "he and others should be recognized" because they already have: they got their awards. You don't need to visit a website decades later to add his name. If we wanted to write about him, we would have. I very much understand your motivation but I've tried to explain above why you cannot do this and you give the impression you've ignored what I wrote due to your single-minded obsession. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, thank you for answering my questions. I have not ignored what you said. I have simply inquired further to understand. As I mentioned I am new to Wikipedia so I am asking valid questions prior to just making a change so that I do follow the guidelines and best practices. Please do not say I am “wrong”, it is my opinion which everyone is entitled to. I do not appreciate your ending comments. Mathforlife (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]