Additionally, if consensus does favor his inclusion, please pay attention to the formatting; specifying that his general's rank is a brevet in the brevet column is redundant, to-rank dates and specific service (regular army - USA - or volunteer - USV) should be included, and his departure from Moultrie is probably relevant as well. [[User:IcarusPhoenix|IcarusPhoenix]] ([[User talk:IcarusPhoenix|talk]]) 04:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, if consensus does favor his inclusion, please pay attention to the formatting; specifying that his general's rank is a brevet in the brevet column is redundant, to-rank dates and specific service (regular army - USA - or volunteer - USV) should be included, and his departure from Moultrie is probably relevant as well. [[User:IcarusPhoenix|IcarusPhoenix]] ([[User talk:IcarusPhoenix|talk]]) 04:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
::What you've outlined makes good sense. Sorry for my hasty inclusion. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
::What you've outlined makes good sense. Sorry for my hasty inclusion. -- [[User:Gwillhickers|''Gwillhickers'']] 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Editor of the week barnstar.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]], for workhorse content creation and improvement over extended period of time with fantastic attitude. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
[[User:Buster7]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:I nominate {{noping|Gwillhickers}} as Editor of the Week. His interest in Early American and British Naval History ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships]]), Postal History ([[Philately]]) and History ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents]]), in general, provide a wide ranging level of WP participation. He endeavors to provide topical and literary cross referencing between articles and hopes that areas of interest in each article will serve to enhance one another. He has promoted 4 article to GA status, has 3 mentions @ DYK and has made considerable contributions to rewrites of dozens of articles. A workhorse with over an astonishing 72% mainspace in 37000 edits; his motto is "Humbly we go forth" which speaks to his purpose and his drive.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<pre>{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}</pre>
Thanks again for your efforts! '''[[User:Go Phightins!|<font color="blue">Go</font>]] [[User talk:Go Phightins!|<font color="#E90004">''Phightins''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Go Phightins!|<font color="#008504">!</font>]]''' 17:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Gwillhickers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. ... Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - Thanks for the great image of Constitution's 1947 3c stamp. It's a great photo of an important subject. The article mentions the stamp directly later on at USS_Constitution#Bicentennial_celebrations (near the end of the second paragraph), so I've moved the image there to allow readers to see the stamp where it's mentioned. Thanks again for adding the image! --Badger151 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to WP, always nice to have more stamp enthusiasts! You might like to join up with the philately project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately, where we keep each other up to date with our activities, discuss plans and standards, etc. You might also be interested in my first attempt at a ships on stamps list, List of ships on stamps, which bogged down a little Stan (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Graham Bell stamp
Hi Gwillhickers: my apologies for the terse edit summary last night when I reverted your change to the caption (when I occasionally execute rapid keystrokes on my computer it will sometimes treat them as a 'Save Page' command and truncate the text that I typed, which is what happened yesterday).
The difference between your text and mine is not worth arguing about, but your text needs to be corrected since 'Grahm' (Graham) was misspelled which was the reason for my revert. It can also be slightly improved, as shown here:
~ Alexander Graham Bell ~
on a 1940 U.S. stamp issue
Since the article already has a left hand side image, I would suggest that the stamp image also be placed on the left side of the section to balance the large statue image above it. Otherwise the stamp is an excellent addition to the article.
I feel additionally that since many dozens of stamps have been issued for Bell as noted in the adjacent paragraph, that the text related to this particular stamp should be inserted into the related article, Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes, where a franked copy of the same stamp is currently shown (and can be replaced with yours). Otherwise many other stamp enthusiasts may also insert additional text related to their Bell stamps, which i.m.h.o. are not highly notable.
Hello. I have moved the experimental foreign U.S. Air Mail section back down to the end of the entry as the intro defines "U.S. Air Mail" as "...the servicing of flown mails by the U.S. postal system within the United States, its possessions, and/or territories ...". and placed in a new section called "Foreign U.S. Air Mail" so that it does not disrupt the chronological flow of information about domestic Air Mail which no longer exists as a separate class of service. Foreign (or international) U.S. Air Mail, on the other hand, still does exist as a distinct class and should probably become its own article eventually. Centpacrr (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've actually been pondering this page since you created it, thinking about how it should fit into the system of WP articles. It's a little difficult, for several reasons. First, we haven't yet had much success with articles on topical philately; what are the unique facts that would go into such an article, and what sources would one use? Second, US history on US stamps is broad, encompassing hundreds of issues, but not focussed or especially thematic - every country puts lots of its history on its stamps. If you pick and choose, then you risk turning it into an personal essay or magazine article, which are not suitable for a reference work.
So the thing to figure out is what factual material is going to be at the core of the article, using existing articles as an analogy. (Pictures are nice, but they are never more than adjuncts to article prose... and yes, the wikimedia universe should have a place for extensive galleries, but nobody can agree where.) A good starting approach is to reread some featured articles and think about how you would do what they do. Also, coming back to the reference work idea, think about what facts the readers are looking for; everybody over the age of 10 knows that a country puts its history on its stamps, so what is it that you are adding?
In the topical case, our special problem is that the unique facts are not the historical events, which are well covered in their own articles, nor the developments of routes and rates, but the choice of subject and design process. Fortunately, for many US stamps there is much detail available. To take an example from Gary Griffith's book on the 1922-26 stamps, the Lexington-Concord issue gets 10 pages starting with the act of Congress directing their issuance, through the debate over the subjects to depict, and then describing how the source images were adapted into stamp designs. The 10 pages could actually be summarized into a nice one-page article Lexington-Concord Issue, and I think the overall topical article would just mention this as a part of the 150-year-anniversary group of the 1920s.
It might make sense to first try your hand at writing up details of several notable stamp issues, for instance Columbian Issue could be expanded with more detail. Then you can abstract from the detailed articles into an overview. I'm also thinking that grouping by meta-themes makes sense - anniversary-motivated issues, politically-motivated subjects, historical subjects altered for the stamp issue, subjects/designs that are now outdated by modern scholarship, etc. And again, think about the facts you're presenting that are going to be here and nowhere else in WP. Stan (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Stan, I have moved this thread to the draft page's discussion page.
I nominated it for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the left side of the screen, there is Recent Changes. On top of Recent Changes is New Pages. That's how I find articles that I think are good enough for DYK or should be deleted. For information about DYK, read Wikipedia:Did you know. If your article is approved (which I don't see why it wouldn't be), it will appear on the main page for six hours. The quote from your article that I chose is "...that the first U.S. stamp that depicted a space vehicle was issued in 1948?". If you want to request an alt hook, you can go to the entry on Template talk:DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is nice! The Fort Bliss stamp is a good example of the "unique fact" I was referring to previously - even philatelists tend to think space stamps only date from 1957 or so. Another bit that would be good for this page is the extreme secrecy surrounding the Mercury stamp's design and production. Stan (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to view live lists of new pages user the new page patrol tool. User:TheJosh/Scripts/New Page Patroller follow the instructions and you will get a list of recent pages (up to 1000 but not recommended) next to your search bar. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charles R. Chickering
Here is a source for your proposed article [1] If i find more i`ll post them here for you. BTW in response to your post on my talk page, i was on recent change patrol, your edit summary caught my eye :) so i looked over the article, no secret radar involved sadly lol mark nutley (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you messaged me concerning citations for the Isabella I of Castile page but I really have no idea what you're talking about. If I edited it, I do not know when since it has well over 3000 edits. I tried looking but couldn't find my name anywhere on the edit history. And the page is quite adequately cited compared to the majority of other pages, so again I do not know what you mean. Mind clarifying? –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khanof the Barbarian Horde 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isabella I
hello, I have edited Isabella I of Castile but I havent done any major edits apart from add the section about her children which pretty much speaks for itself. thank you--David (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pony Express - First Rider
In light of the fact, the references below and numerous other sources cite Billy Richardson as a highly likely candidate for the first rider; it is reasonable to include him thus giving the reader an opportunity to make their own conclusion.
The thing is that adding the tag without using the talk page to explain what the problem is does not help. If you have a problem with the neutrality of the article then explain the problem at Talk:Alexander Graham Bell. I know that you have commented on the talk page but it's not clear as to why you feel the article violates the NPOV. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to want a resolution to the issue of adding images to the article in question, see the talk page and edit history for the latest actions, namely, archiving the previous "string" of discussions. Throughout the recent spate of interactions with other editors, one applicable Wikipedia tenet that can be invoked is: WP:BRD which stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss. Gaining consensus for contentious contributions comes through a discourse on the appropriate article talk pages. FWiW, participating in an international project to create an authoritative global resource requires all contributors to collaborate in a meaningful manner. Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Contact
John, aka "GWillHickers", I am pleased to enter into a discussion with you on any topic. Your earnest elaboration on the reasoning behind your latest foray into the realm of Wikiwacky world, elicited a rather curt appraisal on my part; forgive my cursory reference to you as being absorbed in philatelic subjects. Although as you can possibly discern from my profile on Wikipedia or other Internet sites, I also have a passionate interest, that being aviation which has been alternately an avocation and lately, the source of my livelihood. Full disclosure forthwith: Like many others, I choose to participate in this project, but I do have an ulterior motive. As an aviation aficionado, my submissions are not entirely altruistic as I use the forum as a writing and editing exercise, to "keep sharp". Many of the articles I have submitted and even some portions of my books have appeared on Wikipedia, being worked up into a suitable form before proceeding to publication. Shhhhh!, don't tell anyone! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relaxing 'fair-use' size limitations for 1978+ stamps
Shortly I will be submitting an appeal to WP to relax size limitations on stamp images released after 1978. The appeal will be on the basis that the USPS is not concerned with size limitations and also that there are no copyright holders who would be compromised by relaxing such limits on size and res' for postage stamp issues as the case might be for copyright holders of album covers, paintings celeb' photos, etc. It would seem this is the definitive distinction that separates stamp images from most of these other types. Any advice, condesending or constructive, is welcomed. GWillHickers (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Just wanted to drop you a note that I have nominated this article for GA review. It was just sitting there collecting dust in the corner, not even assessed. It is a very good piece in my humble opinion. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope it passes. Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madison Stamp
Original 2001 Madison stamp was upgraded and is now orphaned.
Archived
Interesting...
Wow, something of an esoteric introduction I must say, but thank you. I did indeed enjoy the numismatic listing of presidents, and... you know; I actually had no idea where the template image on my user page came from. (I just ported it from another user's page). That's quite nice to know, and with your permission I might use that stamp for my page! Thanks again, and if there's anything you need feel free to come by my page and I'd be glad to help. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The stamp image is a hi'res scan of a stamp in my collection but because the stamp is a product of the Federal gov, issued before 1978, any photo image of these stamps are therefore in the public domain. Anyone can use them. If you have a mind for American history you might want to check out various stamp issues of the U.S. post office issued over the last 160+ years. As I explain on my user page, every major chapter in American history is recorded, celebrated, on US Postage stamps. Esp George Washington. Enough of the stamp lecture. -- Any ideas why Herik's stat page is in repose again? Quite a tool. Earlier I was amazed to see that the George Washington page is viewed an average of 6,000 times per day. On the 4th of July the page was viewed 19,000 times! GWillHickers (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no... I am not well versed in numismatism and it's quite interesting. Anyway, I have no idea why there is a lack of stat data on the the stat page. However, I've found that if you select "page history" and click the page stats link there it works just fine! For me at least... Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any time I want to check a page's stats I click 'View History' and then ' Page view statistics'. Today, Aug 2nd, ie.on the Thomas Jefferson page there are no stats for Aug.1 and the last four days of July. Odd. -- Also, if you are not familiar with displaying images, all you have to do is cut and paste the command line for the Minute Man image (in your user discussion page's mark up) to your main user page. GWillHickers (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using the uncommon word "issue" instead of stamp or postage stamp which provides a proper and easily understandable meaning. The word issue, often used to refer to offspring or a problem, does not convey the meaning intended to regular readers when reading philatelic articles: in fact I sometimes have to think what you mean. Simplicity is better. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before the term issue is ever used by itself the term stamp issue or postage stamp is used before it, however in all probability there may be exceptions and if and where they occur I will render the term accordingly. GWillHickers (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Around here we use the common name. If you can show, supported by reliable sources that this is the current common name, I am sure we will be happy to use it in future articles. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grant Postage stamps
Thanks. The stamp section is good. Maybe 3-5 stamps would be alright to put in the section. Any appropriate historical addition to USG is good. He had a commemortive silver coin, maybe others, gold or silver. A USG coin section would be good. That would be a good additional section. What is interesting is the money used back then. Possibly a section on Coinage when Grant was President would be good including paper money. It is hard to find pictures of money from the 1870's, particularly the $1,000 bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...
Thomas Jefferson
Hello, Gwillhickers! I recently made this change to the article, but was reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Jefferson with slavery
You made an edit [2] claiming "Prior sentence was a blatant contradiction. ' '..did not oppose slavery as a politician, although as President he did sign the law that banned the slave trade..' '??" WP:BOP "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The sources cited indicate that there is no "contradiction", blatant or otherwise. Many pro-slavery people supported a ban on the slave trade in 1807 to protect slavery. Please review WP:V policy where it says that "the source [must] directly support the material in question."
BTW, please pay attention to the talk page because you'll see this particular sentence is currently being debated.[3] You can add your input, but please refrain from making unjustified edits without consensus, particularly those that lack historical accuracy or directly contradict the sources cited. This is why I reverted your edit [4]Ebanony (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, the sentence as it stood was a contradiction. It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it. In your effort to maintain historical accuracy please try not to overlook the glaringly obvious. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it." By signing a law to outlaw the slave trade? First off it said as a politician he did not oppose it, as with legislation or otherwise. Your reading of the text is flawed. If you can't make the simple distinction between the institution of slavery and the slave trade, then I suggest you study the matter. Jefferson in no way made any law against slavery as President - historical fact. Your claim is not supported by the sources, and that violates V policy. If you want to make a change to that section, please discuss it first here: [5]Ebanony (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can help (the article) by voicing your consensus about the Controversy section size, which is beginning to grow again. Parkwells, one of the main editors to the section, has acknowledged the situation and I believe he will be making efforts to correct this ongoing problem. Again, consensus needs to be heard again, and the page needs constant attention until this matter is resolved. The latest call for consensus is at the bottom of the Jefferson talk page. Thanks for all of your other help, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gwillhickers! I saw that you are manually archiving some parts of the talk page. However, the page is archived by User:MiszaBot IMiszaBot. If it gets to long, I suggest simply reducing the 90 day age for archiving. Mixing manual and automatically generated archives is not impossible, but tricky - it's probably best to attach the manually archived material to the youngest existing archive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we have to do something. The discussion page was a mile long, making it more difficult to follow more than one discussion when editing. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schultz
I'm not Schultz (although I may sadly approach his waistline), and I'd really prefer it if you don't make really really mistaken statements about the sources I provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "mistaken statement" was that, for some reason you forgot to mention that, also. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the birth dates of Hemings children are not at this link. Also see my extended comment added here to the main discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson talk page
I actually did comment there a while back, and I think we were on roughly the same side, at least as concerns mentioning the Hemings business in the lead. That page is a damn mess, but at least there are a lot of editors who care about it. Harrison doesn't inspire the same devotion, I guess. --Coemgenus 14:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln stamp
Thanks for pointing out the additional fact about the only airmail stamp to honor a pres. If you would, please in the future use the space provided to give a brief description of your edit. This will help us get the article to FA status, as well as the stamps in there. Thanks again. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I first included the stamp image back in April of 2010 and it was removed, twice. I tend not to make log entries when I am restoring illegal deletions and making general fixes in image size, text formatting, etc. Thanks for looking out just the same. Btw.. It's good to see the Lincoln page shaping up. I am in the process of repairing and rewriting most of the Thomas Jefferson page as it will also be the second major fix the page has gone through. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input on the article (my brother God bless him was a philatelist) and particularly your comment about the Legacy section needing some work. I gave it some work today. I'm sure it needs more but I do think we have improved it, thanks to your note. I think the best thing about an FAN for AL is the improvement that USUALLY comes about from it. That said, AL does such a great job bringing out the hunger in us history buffs that he's not suitable for the FA in a way – whenever he gets it he won't stay there long – and that's fine. Thanks again. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson stamp
Your particular example is perforated, and perforation didn't start until 1857. So yeah, the design is from 1856, but the depicted stamp is later. Stan (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that, and thanks also for adding the note in the file summary. I'll have the correct image uploaded asap. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do have File:Stamp US 1856 5c.jpg, which is an 1856 imperforate, albeit not a mint copy (out of my price range, ha ha). BTW, you might be interested in my new website http://stampdata.com - it's a wiki, but as an independent site it can aim for more in-depth coverage and doesn't have the restrictive image rules of WP. Even in its early state, searches across the whole database yield interesting results! Stan (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issue of 1856 Here is the correct type for the 'first' Jefferson stamp. The Smithsonian's account leads one to think the perforated example was the 1st. btw.. Nice web site! I'll include it in external links on a few stamp articles, like Stamp collecting -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Monroe Map
Hi Gwillhickers, I noticed that a map you uploaded was removed from an article today and the user left a message here. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible sources for ACW stamp article
I saw the idea that you might do an article on stamps of the ACW, so I've gotten a few, possible contemporary sources for you:
Hello, an editor brought up copyright concerns with this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 July 27. I noticed you have been heavily editing the article and some of those edits added text that is very similar to a source here. One edit in particular adds a very similar, closely-paraphrased paragraph. The article: "Enterprise and the frigate USS Constitution captured the Tripolitan ketch Mastico on December 23, 1803, after a close confrontation...", the source "On December 23, 1803, Enterprise and the frigate USS Constitution captured the Tripolitan ketch Mastico after a sharp fight..." I have tagged the article with {{copyvio}} and re-listed its report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 5. Please follow the instructions and if you have any questions, let me know.--NortyNort(Holla) 12:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you need the text, you can view an old revision and paste it into the temp. From there you can work on it. I didn't want to remove a lot of text because I noticed you put so much work into the article. Restoring to before your edits would likely remove a lot of good contributions to the article.--NortyNort(Holla) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The page was roughly 1/3 the size it is now before I began work on it in May. I don't see the page as needing an "overhaul" as one editor has suggested. I think it would be easier if the concerned parties were more specific as to what needs rewording. It seems that because of the wording of one passage it is assumed that the entire article needs to be rewritten. I have put several months of research and effort into the page and presently simply do not have the time to rewrite/re-research the entire article all over again. I feel the quickest and easiest way to remedy any problems is for the concerned parties to simply point them out and I will be more than happy to correct them. Again the one problem that was pointed out could have been remedied with a quick rewording and I am puzzled as to why that did not occur by any of the concerned parties here. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did a comparison and you can see there is still a lot of similarity in the text. I can take of this but will more then likely remove a lot of text; keeping it brief. When using a single source to transcribe a story, close-paraphrasing is hard to avoid. In this case as well, there are exact sentences as well.--NortyNort(Holla) 11:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children; it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas MacDonough page
The proposed target page, Thomas Macdonough, already exists as a redirect to Thomas MacDonough. I'll make the move as requested, just need to take a little time to review how to do a swap of this type while preserving histories properly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished the move ... instructions were at WP:SWAP. Could you verify that "MacDonough" and "McDonough" are both documented variants and refer to the same person? This could / should be documented someplace in the article (there may be a field in the biography infobox). I'm going to manually resolve all of the links to the redirects, but it would be useful if challenged to have documentation that the variants were extant and used in some official capacity at some time. Thanks. --00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid all I can do at this point is show that all the reliable sources, including the biography written by Macdonough's brother, Rodney, use the aforesaid spelling with lower-case 'd'. Will look to some primary sources to see what I can find. In any case THANKS!! for the prompt move. When you or anyone gets the chance it would be interesting to see what an updated rating would look like. I would like to bring the page to at least Good Article status and that would be a big help. Again, many thanks for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Italicization of Ships
Howdy,
Just to let you know:
If you use the {{USS|xxxxx}} template, you do NOT need to use the italicization marks (''{{USS|xxxxx}}''). It should do it automatically for you. This helps just italicize the name of the ship and not the USS, HMS, etc.
Thanks for the info. I have been italicizing the entire name of the ship because it seems sort of odd, to me at least, to have part of the name with normal letters while the latter part is italicized. As the 'USS' or the 'HMS' is part of the name I have simply italicized the entire name. My thinking is that names that include Mr., Mrs., Doctor, Lieutenant, etc never have the latter part italicized only ( i.e. Mr. Jones ). However, if this is the (unspoken) policy for ship's names here at WP then I suppose I will make the changes. I will be nominating the Stephen Decatur page for FA sometime soon. If they make issue with the style I have employed I will go ahead and make the changes there and elsewhere. I will also run this by the editors over at the History Project and see what they say also. Thanks for taking an interest! All the best, Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there IP user. OK, I got my second opinion on the project page and a referral to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines which outlines ship's names. i.e.Prefix not italicized. Will begin the transformation. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Italicisation of Ships 2: Titles
There are two ways to go about italicising an article title.
(For any article) Use the "magic word" DISPLAYTITLE. Add the code {{DISPLAYTITLE:USS ''Name'' (Here)}} anywhere in the article (although the preferred locations are either at the very top or the bottom of the article)
(For ship articles only) Add {{Infobox Ship}} to the article, and begin filling it out. The template will detect that the article is about a USN vessel, and cause the title to appear with the ship name italicised.
Hope this helps: -- saberwyn 22:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting funky results using {{Infobox Ship}}. While it renders the name Concord in italics it also displays a lot of code at the top line. (Don't want an info box at this point, just the name in italics.) I also tried adding the word DISPLAYTITLE with the 'nowiki' tag following right after it with funky results. It's no doubt an easy edit, but I'm just not getting it down right. Could you please edit in the 'infobox ship' correctly so it renders the name only. Then I will know exactly what to do from now on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My error on both fronts. 1. was supposed to display as {{DISPLAYTITLE:USS ''Name'' (Here)}}, do not use the nowiki tags. 2. was supposed to direct to {{Infobox Ship Begin}}.
I've set up the article with a ship infobox and started filling it it. I'll leave it up to you to fill in any additional details (look at similar ships from that era for ides on what you need) and to delete any irrelevant fields (although I'd be pretty worried if an early 1800s was capable of operating aircraft!) -- saberwyn 23:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging
While you're tagging a lot of articles, do small stubs, based on the American Dictionary of Fighting Ships warrant it? Wee Curry Monstertalk 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do, esp when most are cut and pasted from that source!! I didn't start out with the idea of tagging a lot of articles -- I was going through a list of sloops' looking for a good ship image to use in an article, and to my surprise I found out that most of these articles were lifted -- many in their entirety! I'm in the process of making a list and bringing it to the attention of the history project right now. Don't like to be the boogie-man. Hopefully folks will spend more time reading and writing articles rather than just hopping around from one article to another and tweaking and pecking at them, as seems to be the practice with too many editors around here these days. Seems for every one writer there are 20 'tweakers' and 'peckers'. With all the tweaking, you'd think some of these pages would get fixed. Most are not stubs anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
Ahoy matey! You do realise that is PD and you can lift the text directly? ie its not a copyright infringement - moreover there is a template to highlight this?
I don't do that myself, I consider it lazy the only one article to me is USS Trumbull (1799), which was one of the first articles I wrote. Whilst its not brilliant piece of prose, it is cited and has references. Do you think perhaps you're being a tadge overzealous? If you're of a mind to expand it further and have the sources to do so be my guest but it was a topic I found difficult to find much more information than is in there now. Wee Curry Monstertalk 10:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's PD but we're still not supposed to cut and paste, are we? And we're still supposed to write articles using inline citations. Google has tons of books they have scanned. Again, don't want to play the wiki-cop, but most of the ship's articles need attention. -- Btw, while we're chatting semi-live here, I'm hailing from California, where are you? :-) Gwillhickers (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well technically you can with PD material provided its attributed, which is where the template {{DANFS}} comes into play and its something that multiple mirrors of wikipedia do. (Though personally I consider it lazy.) Don't get me wrong I agree with you that a whole series of articles have been compiled the lazy way. Its just that one of mine you tagged twice wasn't, USS Trumbull (1799), it is a stub that does have an inline cite and reference. Having done a fair bit of research trying to find more info, there isn't a lot of material and its only notable to me because David Jewett was her first and only commander and he is of interest to me. Others on my watchlist I didn't remove the tag as I happen to agree with you. I'm from Glasgow in Scotland. If you have more info on her, I'd be interested to know as I tried and failed to find it.
If you're still not convinced btw User:Moonriddengirl is very knowledgable on copyright matters and I've always found her very helpful. Wee Curry Monstertalk 11:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through some 85 articles. If I wrongly tagged yours or any others please accept my apologies and remove the tag. Yes, I've had dealings with MRG (all good). Any way, I just left a message and a navbox-list of the articles at WikiProject Ships. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Don't worry its not a problem, I just wondered if you might have access to a superior source. Regards. Wee Curry Monstertalk 11:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... A 'superior source'! -- Well, between my 'Mirrior-Mirrior-on-the-Wall' and my very secret 'Crystal-Ball', I must confess, it's either the local used book store or Google. While creating and writing the Concord page I come to find out (thus far) that there was no dedicated text for that ship (and no doubt other less notable ships), so you have to come by the info' sort of sideways, and find mention of various topics in other text. See the bibliography and the refs on that page and you'll see what I mean. I'll keep an eye out and ping your page should I find something on the Trumball. Thanks for the star, btw. it's my first! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 12:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I'll be looking at that this weekend. Wee Curry Monstertalk 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[6] is a direct rip off from my article! But looks like some useful material. BTW the previous Trumbull is more famous due to her role in the Revolutionary War. Wee Curry Monstertalk 20:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A 'rip off'? You should be proud! Yes, lots of sites lift WP articles. Should have caught that. Look to James Fenimore Cooper and W.J.Abbot, they cover a lot of ships in their writings of the early American Navy. It's good to know about these books because with many less notable topics/ships you'll never find much with Google by itself. Searching these books will often turn up much more. I'll try to find others. Howard I. Chapelle is another great source, but you can't search it on line. Gotta buy the book. It's one of the 'Bibles' of the Early American Navy. -- Also, I've completely rewritten the Stephen Decatur, Thomas Macdonough and John Rodgers (1772–1838) pages. Check out the bibliographies -- most of the sources are linked where you can then search for various items. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the tips. Was John Rodgers the Commodore of the South American squadron in 1831? Wee Curry Monstertalk 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From 1827-1831 Rodgers was serving on the Board of Navy Commissioners. Wow! We just had an small earth quake as I speak. Get back to you later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work on minor Frigate and Sloop of War articles. Wee Curry Monstertalk 11:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, there's something about your nav box at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships that's preventing further sections appearing properly. Would you mind sorting it out? Shem (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know - odd isn't it? I tried to fix it myself with no success. Can I suggest you place the navbox on a page such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships/DANFS navbox with a link to your thread? That way nobody will need to put anything after it. Shem (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the problem was a simple one. The </div style> was placed after the ' |} ' instead of before it. How this resulted in other text getting gobbled up like that is beyond me, but now that the 'ropes' have been untangled, we can 'hoist sails' without going backwards. :-) Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is, "well done for sorting it out". I tried and failed miserably. I understand why the text took on the style of the infobox, but I still don't understand how the text ended up inside the infobox. Ho hum. Shem (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently wrong with a number of editors approaching the subject in different ways. Doing so enables comparisons and a consensus to be reached as to the best way to approach the subject. That said, feel free to adopt my style if you want to.
There's no reason each decade/section can't have its own lede section outlining the background to that period. Such details come under "fine tuning" IMHO. I want to get the info down first and worry about that sort of thing later. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I will incorporate your timeline style, but will use war sections placed in along the time line, as the wars I think deserve that sort of notice and also should have some sort of lede. Will be very busy with work this next week, so progress at first will be slow on my end, which is just as well perhaps because there still seems to be issues with using 'bold', placing the ships name first, rather than the Captured date, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with flags and countries. Libya today is not the same as Libya in the C19th, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire! Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wondering about that sort of thing in general. Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it looked like unallowable POV. And looking at that article again, I saw that none of the quotes (and there are too many) had any citations. I think the article needs rewriting, eliminating most, if not all of the quotes. Maybe I'll look at it later. -- Donald Albury 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of List of ships captured in the 19th century
Hi, I have a slight issue with the copy and paste of the see also sections you are currently performing. Perhaps you can hold fire on that and drop by WP:SHIPS to discuss this? Benea (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Sorry for making cryptic jokes. Sergeant Schultz, usually addressed as "Schultz!" (which is pronounced like my last name) is one of the anti-Heros of the cult TC series Hogan's Heros. And he has about my figure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Jefferson and Hyland...
Hi Gwillhickers!
You might be interested in The Thomas Jefferson Hour episodes that deal with the Hemings controversy. Usually, Clay Jenkinson portraits Jefferson in character in this radio program. In this case, "Jefferson" virtually walked out on the topic, and they had a three-episode meta-discussion of the topic. The second show is an hour-long interview with Hyland on his book and its theses (and it's very civil and very softball...). You can find them in any number of places on the net, but in particular you can listen to the show via iTunes and directly via the iTunes website here. The episodes in question are 795 (Jefferson walks out), 796 (with Hyland), and 797 (the wrap-up). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is interesting. We now have actors and commentators acting out their version of what happened. I suppose such productions were created for individuals who are just to inept to evaluate all the evidence and circumstances involved. Has this show introduced any new evidence? I don't think so. Thanks just the same Schulz. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, although I don't quite think your characterisation of Jenkinson's work is accurate. If you don't want Jefferson, try the Hyland interview. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schultz again
Hi Gwillhickers! Thanks for your apology - it's appreciated and accepted. However, to be honest I'm less concerned with the spelling, but rather with the form of address. Where I live, its considered very impolite to address people just by their unadorned last names. Maybe this is a cultural thing - but to me, it makes you look impolite. Anyways, I'm pretty relaxed, and I'm fine with "Stephan" in most setting. If you want to stick with the last name, the generally accepted polite form is "Dr. Schulz". However, I'm in no way anal about this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I get the sense you're more or less in accord with my observations about the cabal that seems to view themselves as owning the Thomas Jefferson article, particularly when it comes to the baby-daddy issue. Amusing that they seem so determined to keep certain cogent, key and quite easily referenced facts out of the main TJ article. When I first started looking into this I realized that outright assertions of his paternity with no further qualification as were stated in the article at the time were simply not supported. There remains an obvious bias and what certainly seems like a deliberate campaign to obscure key points without actually lying about them. I sense I've raised some blood pressure over there. How dare I introduce clarity and balance when every right-minded person *knows* what the truth is... ;-) TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the first to make issue with the language and POV presented on this topic. This issue has come up on the TJ talk page many times before, most notably here and here. In any event see Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reporting scholarship
Hi, Gwillhickers. Thanks for working to improve the Thomas Jefferson article, and to keep it civil. I agree that it is better to have moved the detailed discussion on the controversy to the main article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, and of course it is difficult to decide what to retain in the TJ article. I am concerned that you keep trying to disqualify some RS because you "don't like" what they say. Please see WP:RS for how to assess reliability of sources. We have represented RS on both sides of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy in the article. There are procedures for taking the issue of the TJF to the WP:RS:Noticeboard if you want to disqualify them. For instance, WP does not consider either IMDB nor Find-a-Grave as RS, because their content is user-generated (as is ours, which is why academics don't want students to rely on Wikipedia.) Secondly, you have made much of Wallenborn's dissenting opinion with the TJF report, but I wonder if you have read his statement carefully. He puts emphasis on Martha Jefferson Randolph's deathbed statement that Eston Hemings could not have been Jefferson's son because her father was away for 15 months before his birth. For whatever reason, she was flat out mistaken. Dumas Malone documented Jefferson's activities, including his residencies at Monticello. His work has been used by historians such as Winthrop Jordan and Fawn Brodie, who were the first to note that Thomas Jefferson was at Monticello for the conception period of each of Hemings' children, including Eston. It is surprising that Wallenborn would ignore this evidence, as there is no evidence that Hemings was ever away after returning from France. One dissenter does not disqualify all the scholarship, anyway. I have pointed out at least two scholars who disagreed with the conclusions of the TJHS Scholars' Commission Report, but that does not mean their work is disqualified as a RS, and you have not taken it that way. Please abide by WP:RS. Best wishes in your editing. Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I like your user page. I'm a history buff too. My grandfather taught me a lot of history with his stamp collection when I was a child.
I'm surprised you're balking at the term "slave society." Do you realize this statement of yours from the Jefferson talk page is completely false? Jefferson lived in a democratic society that was largely opposed to slavery. -- as almost all Christians and others then indeed were.
I've just finished today reading James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom. It's half a century after Jefferson, of course, but is replete with stories of the importance of slavery and the strong resistance to abolition, even in the North. The North depended on slave-raised cotton so much they bought it from the South during the Civil War. "Abolition" was a dirty word in the North and a fighting word in the South. Lincoln was not for racial equality.
It's a little tiresome to me that we've given you links to sources that discuss the slave society, but you don't seem to have looked at them, except Berlin's. Please read them, and also the second half of p. 8 through p. 10 of Berlin's book. He makes plain on p. 10 that what distinguishes a "slave society" from a "society with slaves" is "the presence of a planter class." Jefferson was a member of that class. I'll paste in a definitive excerpt from page 177:
". . .the emergence of a planter class and the advent of staple commodity production remade the Chesapeake and the lowcountry from societies with slaves into full-fledged slave societies."
Hi, wanted to correct a misapprehension. I agree that on the Thomas Jefferson article you do not insult editors or accuse them of "agendas," and did not identify you as doing that, even in my draft for the RS/Noticeboard. While I disagree with your interpretation of RS guidelines, as have some other editors, I know you work hard on the article. I'm sorry that you misunderstood; was working in my User sandbox to keep the draft off the main pages. Best wishes on Wikipedia.Parkwells (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Parkwells, thanks for that. Greatly appriciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post on your stamp page
Hi, I wrote something on your stamp page a couple of days ago. Don't know if you've seen it. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Gwillhickers. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. StevenZhangDR goes to Wikimania! 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson-Hemings controversy - "Current Scholarship" Parkwells' personal OR and POV section
Thought you might be interested in taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson-Hemings_controversy and the edit-sparring I've been engaged in over there today with Parkwells regarding the "Current Scholarship" section. He keeps making these uncited claims that are wholesale OR and POV on his part. More of the same "Scholarship Borg" stuff he keeps trying to smuggle into the TJ article.
"..In the last decade, many new works related to Jefferson and Monticello have been published, such as Richard B. Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson (2003); Andrew Burstein's Jefferson’s Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello (2005); Christopher Hitchens' Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (2005); and Annette Gordon-Reed's The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (2008), which won the Pulitzer Prize for history and 15 other major awards. They have used their acknowledgement of Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children as a basis for re-evaluating the rest of his life and some of his political decisions.[63] Other scholars, including some associated with the TJHS, have published works that continue to argue against Jefferson's paternity.."
I looked at the single citation offered at that time (a book review) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/books/slaves-in-the-family.html?scp=2&sq=thomas%20jefferson%20garry%20wills&st=nyt&pagewanted=all for this mess and found that only one of the books or authors mentioned in the paragraph are even addressed by the review and of course the "..They have used their acknowledgement of Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children as a basis for re-evaluating.." verbiage is strictly Parkwells' concoction, nothing of the sort mentioned in the reference which doesn't mention the other books/authors.
I've eliminated the entire section a couple of times since it's nothing but Parkwells' blatant POV and OR soapboxing. You can see in subsequent edits where he's reinserted the section and shuffled some things around and reworded but it'd still his POV/OR. I'm about to blank it again - after referencing the same books it contains the uncited phrase "..Each historian includes the recent consensus that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children, and uses it in his or her evaluation of his life and decisions.." - again, Parkwells' words, not from a reference. I have no doubt he'll find some specious rationale to undo again but thought it could use some additional scrutiny by someone else who's aware of Parkwells' MO.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been going around in the same circle for some time. Right now I think I'll keep my efforts focused on the Thomas Jefferson page while Brad and ASW are working on the proposal. We still have all that POV bloat that needs to be checked. Yes, one look at his user page and the pages he's involved with and you begin to wonder if he's using WP to make a statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't noticed...
...I am an administrator, which is why I closed your duplicate request on WT:Verifiability. That page is not for the discussion of individual sources, but for discussion of the verifiability policy itself. Quite apart from that, it is generally frowned to open the same topic in multiple venues because it fractures the discussion and makes it harder to reach consensus. Feel free to redirect the to the WP:RS/N copy in your own words. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you let them make that decision? Am asking for their feed back also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "them"? Anyways, having two unrelated discussions on the same topic is a bad idea (if all agree, one is superfluous, if they disagree, there is no valid consensus). It wastes everyones time. If you want wider input, then point to one central location. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you let "everyone" decide for themselves if their time is being 'wasted'? In any case, thanks for not reverting again. If they hide or close the section then so be it. Let's give them a chance to say, either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TJF report from 1999-2000
Some interesting things I'm finding via the Hyland book. I thought I would put them here rather than starting a riot on the TJ talk page.
TJF completes their report in mid 1999
Report is held until 27 Jan 2000; about a week after the MLKing Holiday which is:
Just a few days before Feb which is Black History Month
The CBS mini-series Sally Hemings: An American Scandal airs the same month. The show depicts TJ beating on Hemings.
Revenue for the TJF went from 2 million a year to about 12 in the years since. (my comment: "Yet admission to Monticello is $20.)
Author Ellis, who did a complete flip-flop of his stance, serves on the board of a foundation responsible for financial support of the TJF.
Reed is good friends with two of the "scholars" responsible for the 1999 report.
The TJF used no outside "scholars" for its report. All of them were in house associates.
I could go on with this. These are verifiable facts and cited as such by Hyland. He interviewed Wallenborn for this book and quotes him extensively. Really hard to debunk the book as a source when it's directly quoting people. Brad (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this I know. As I've said, their involvement with the controversy is completely partisan driven. Their donations skyrocketing is interesting. I'm wondering where the bulk of their donations is 'now' coming from. As for media presentations, i.e.TJ beating Hemings, this is an obvious attempt to sell the issue with emotion that plays on the sentiment over the hardship of slavery. Now that they are emotionally entrenched many blacks and others will go through life believing this stuff, never inquiring any further, which was no doubt why they released this garbage in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philately and the British Library
Hi!
I'm currently the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library, and I've been working with curators here to discuss ways they can work with the Wikipedia community.
The philately department here already has experience of Wikipedia; they worked with one of our editors earlier in the year to help create a series of articles on their collections. They're interested in working with more people to support their writing, either about the BL's philatelic collections or about philatelic topics in general - for example, by recommending sources, or providing comments and advice on finished articles. I'm also working on the possibility of arranging for copyright-cleared images.
If this is something you might be interested in, please do let me know and we can discuss the details!
(I've posted a notice to the philately wikiproject, but I'm also approaching a few active editors directly, so my apologies if you see the message twice.)
Italicized ship article titles
Hi Gwillhickers.
Use {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}. For CS Syren, that would be {{DISPLAYTITLE: CS ''Syren''}}. Nice article, by the way. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it. By the way, I think the article's title should be CSSSyren, as in Confederate States' Ship Syren. Manxruler (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Syren was a privately owned vessel. If it was a gov ship then I believe it would get the 'CSS' prefix. Will look into it further also. Thanks for the feedback. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Right. Then the prefix SS (steamship) is probably better. Manxruler (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you very much for all of your contributions and refinement of pages like James Fenimore Cooper (which can be seen here) and Thomas Jefferson. Keep it up, (and we could always use support writing the James Fenimore Cooper articles, there are a suprising number of them missing!) Sadads (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillihickers, I'm appealing to you to see the balance that, even though you seek it, seems to elude you. You wrote:
Presenting missing historical content/context is neutral. All that is being done with the treatment of slaves and slavery is to show how Jefferson's feelings about slaves and slavery went beyond 'theory' and was something he practiced. Don't know why this is something that upsets you.
It would be wrong not to include this side of the story (added emphasis):
Most recorded incidents of brutality came from overseers and stewards. . . To support his “more rational and humane plan” of treatment, Jefferson sought overseers who embraced his approach. Jefferson stipulated that the whip “must not be resorted to except in extremities,” but his instructions were often ignored during his long absences. In the Mulberry Row nailery for example, the “small ones” could be whipped for “truancy.” In the fields, enslaved men or women could be flogged for arriving late or weeding too slowly. http://www.monticello.org/mulberry-row/topics/treatment
Although Jefferson praised Lilly as “as good a one [overseer] as can be,” Lilly’s management was punctuated by violence. In 1801, Jefferson was concerned with his overseer’s “treatment of the nailers.” In 1804, joiner James Oldham [a white man who worked for TJ]] charged Lilly with “Barbarity … moast cruel” after whipping an ill James Hemings. http://www.monticello.org/mulberry-row/people/gabriel-lilly
The plain truth is that TJ had moral compunctions against slavery but was trapped in the plantation system. I believe he sincerely wanted the most humane treatment for his slaves, but 1. Since they were involuntarily in bondage, they were not always cooperative, and 2. When TJ was away, the most he could do about cruel taskmasters was wring his hands.
Please stop arguing and editing against the well-sourced fact that TJ was most vocally and publicly opposed to slavery at the beginning of his career. Your insistence otherwise causes much unnecessary discussion and has to repeatedly be corrected in the article.
I understand your desire to resist the idea that TJ was an ogre. He is my favorite president and my next-to-favorite founding father, and we owe it to him to write a neutral biography that doesn't present or oppose a certain bias ("He was a villain." "He was a saint.") but just tells the facts. Cmguy seems to lean toward the villainous side and you to the saintly. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the Truman biography said only two stamps it is incorrect. Scotts stamp catalog is always a good source. The Smithsonian National Postal Museum is also a reliable source. Here's a start.
There should be others there. Hope this helps. btw, I just visited the Truman page and corrected the number. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That still leaves "On September 2, 1995, the USPS issued a 29 cent stamp showing Truman announcing Japan's surrender as part of its World War II 50th anniversary series." I don't have a Scotts. Do you or is their an online one?PumpkinSkytalk 10:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, "Scott Specialized Catalogue of United States Stamps and Covers. Scott Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-89487-446-8." is good, but we need page numbers to get Truman to FA. Can you help with that? PumpkinSkytalk 10:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's something wrong with, I'm trying to figure it out.PumpkinSkytalk 12:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)...It says '95 was 29 cents but it was 32? PumpkinSkytalk 12:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another error, the '99 one was 33 not 32 cents, here's the link [7]. I can use these 5 refs but the Scott's one with page numbers would cut it to one ref. PumpkinSkytalk 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the past sometimes I just mentioned Scotts by itself, with just a year date as this catalog/reference is issued every year and so a page number that covers a particular stamp issue will change from year to year. If this is not suitable then, yes, use the Smithsonian as a ref for each stamp. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Books without page numbers don't cut it under today's FA standards, so I'll use the SI pages. PumpkinSkytalk 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For commemorative stamp issues I believe you can refer to Scott's 'Commemorative index' as a reference without the page number, as index is definitive enough. It's a list of all commemorative stamps to date. Here you can determine how many of e.g.Lincoln or Washington stamps exist, etc. Sort of like referring to the Bible. You can make reference to a chapter and verse, without page numbers. 'Scotts' is considered the 'bible' of stamp collecting. It is used by the stamp collecting market (estimated 10 million people) for reference numbers, stamp values, etc. Not sure if this exception would be allowable under FA standards. Your call. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FA standards. You may have difficulty with that if you use a lot of web pages cites as references. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SI is imminently reliable. But yea 5 is a lot be all need refs. Do you know of any precedent where Scott's was used in a FA without page numbers? PumpkinSkytalk 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many Truman stamps does the index say there are? Keeping in mind the 1984 stamp was a definitive.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Five that I know about, so right now Truman has 5 separate refs, the Smithsonian pages. PumpkinSkytalk 22:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, what does the book say?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo Link
I would like to restore the a link on the Apollo Program page which leads to the Moon landing conspiracy theories page. I have reviewed the history of this article and found that a section was added in November 8th 2003 called "related issues" Under this heading a link was added to the conspiracy page. This link survived seven years until June 13th 2010 when you removed without comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apollo_program&diff=367683484&oldid=367610848
Do you remember why you made this change? I do no believe the anything changed between June 12th 2010 and June 13th 2010 to warrant such a change. Do you object to me undoing this change and restoring this link? --ApoGnosis (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quite remember, but go ahead and restore the link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- thanks again for your guidance at Thomas Jefferson talk, my only 'provocative' hit in over 3,000 edits. Though I'm again facing repeated reverts from the same Golbez who repeatedly reverted my picture caption edits at 'United States', I've steered clear of that I think. But recent developments lead me to ask for mentor-ly-like council. Please consider yourself invited to simply tell me I'm 'barking up the wrong tree', or 'not here, not now', or 'do some more homework'.
- I made an edit on the United States article intro paragraph, an editor suggested something else at talk, I changed it. Golbez reverted it. we went to talk, I thought I understood him, I edited the page, Golbez reverted it. We returned to talk and talk.
- This oldie-newbie doesn’t get it. Golbez just observed, since no one joins in the discussion, he must be right ipso facto, the consensus is undisturbed.-- But I just thought I had my thoughts refined enough to call for a ‘request for comment’ – I think that’s what is now called for ... ?
- My modest proposal, reduce some of the wordiness of the first paragraph, and incorporate a political sense of the United States as 21st century sources see it: U.S. State Department, U.S. Census, CIA and U.S. Congress. Current conventions of scholarly geographical associations may not admit to that, so the proposal may be fruitless if geographic conventions govern the wikipedia United States article. But none of that speculation on my part has come forward, only wiki-fencing. I just thought to give a little political inclusion a go. Introduce the people first, the place second. The third draft runs thusly, additions and changes in italics:
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic of over 314 million people principally residing in fifty states. U.S. citizens in the federal district and five other territories in the geographic United States have delegates in the U.S. Congress representing 4.5 million. The country possesses nine uninhabited islands and it maintains special political relationships through Compacts of Free Association with two United Nations members and one foreign dependency together numbering 170,000. The U.S. is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Other territory is found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2), the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.
- Well, anything more you should read for yourself, if you could take a few minutes. It’s an interesting exercise in wiki-editoring regardless of the outcome, and I really should get back to another article if this cannot go anywhere. I trust your judgment. I'll watch here for a reply. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay TVH, I took a quick look into it. It's a little difficult to sort out the lengthy discussions while trying to cross reference it with edit history and past versions of the lede. Currently the lede includes the phrase The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. Yes, this belongs in the lede. If it can be done with 'less wording' this is (usually) better. Not sure what 'the' issue is here. As I indicated, I'll have to sort through it further. If you take the matter to RFC my advice would be to simplify the issue for them, as I can tell you from past experience, when a Request' gets too lengthy and involved the folks at RFC will just get bleary-eyed and may let the request 'rot on the vine'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the calming encouragement. I'll work on it to make it as concise as I can. The only other one I've launched was over on CSA concerning its flag, Golbez was on my side ... I'll have to give it some more thought to get it right. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TVH, sounds okay. Remember, that in the effort to be 'concise' it's also important not to stripe away historical content, and moreover, the context. I think you saw what happens to sentences/sections (on the Jefferson page) when isolated statements with no context are made -- they can often change the meaning and tone of the phrase or sentence, as I'm sure you're aware. If someone ever takes you to task about writing 'more' than a bare-bones statement just remind them that WP is not a dictionary. In any event, I did not mean to imply your writing leaves people bleary-eyed, you write very well, it's just when a RFC discussion goes back and forth that the RFC people, who have to sort through many cases per week, can, shall we say, lose interest. Right now I'm taking sort of a break from editing busy pages like the Jefferson page and am working on adding citations to various naval/ships articles and am building a general early American naval bibliography to help other editors build various related history pages. Nice and quiet. :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well looking back, all I really wanted to say -- in the first sentence-- was that the geographical extent of the U.S. is 50 states, a federal district and five territories. -- that will probably be the actual substance of the rfc. The problem is not just inertia which most newbies complain about, it is that the enterprise is collaborative, a different frame of reference. I am still thinking through the rationale, so I'll post the next step of my thinking process on u.s. talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
naval history biography
- Beginning a write up on Bombardment of Cherbourg I was struck by the abbreviated WP stub on Morton Deyo, commanding TF-129. So I undertook my second biography article (first was Pauline Maier, a stub made up of the publisher's dust jacket blurb from a book three books ago, with nothing since. She changed publishers? Since expanding it, I'm proud to see over 100 hits around semester registration time, no days of zero hits since I made the first major expansion and refuted the challenges that would return it to a stub ....
- I found a little from online bios for Deyo, but mostly expanded it with a list of ships he served on which I had found online at the LOC, then later a bit more with some newspaper clippings online published at the time of his retirement.
- At first, most of the code in the article was a gallery of pics with ship names and service dates. Then reading into the naval histories of each ship online, I expanded the narrative, organized paragraphs by topic. In later commands, the naval history bios of ships and commands named him so I could use personal pronoun.
- Found a collection of the Lucky Bag USNAs college annual, at my father's (Captain, USN, Retired) retirement home. Really fun, since Deyo was in the same graduating class as my grandfather (Captain, USN, retired, deceased). So I was able to expand "early years" a bit for Deyo's WP biography -- reliable source if referenced not asserted?
- It's been a while since I revisited the site. Would you take a look at it?
- [Aside] Part of my interest is that Deyo was a "destroyer sailor" as was my father, I spent some considerable time on several occasions exploring his ships with him and with indulgent tour-guiedes. My grandfather was also a destroyer sailor in the Asiatic Squadron, also commanded one of the gunboats negotiating with warlords up the Yantse River? Grandmother told a story of being parked out on the porch of the imperial palace pictured in the movie 'Last Emperor' while grandfather went inside - family lore - were foreign women even let inside the gates? I have a photo of three junks in line with sails set - grandfather was something of a photography buff. I was told that sails set meant they were going upriver, as they plied downstream by current, upstream by prevailing westerly winds. At that time, officers could take their families aboard to transport them for stays at rotating stations, Manila, Shanghai ? in a foreigner-settlement-district -- western education to be had at the hands of a school run by French nuns? and a west coast ? Japanese port. In my boyhood, I lived with father for three years at the U.S. naval base at Yokosuka, Tokyo Bay. When a boy went swimming, he came out of the salt water with slicks of oil from passing freighters ... had to keep your head up out of the water ... but I digress.
- What is the procedure to get the article reviewed for status? I'm afraid this old once-supply officer needs a checklist. (Captain, USMCR, active duty 1970-73, active reserve 1974-5). The military project sites, though very well organized, are difficult for me to follow, but I'd like to develop and collaborate to get G or GA status in this and two other military articles - both with naval history connections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
naval bibliography
Scanning the U.S. navy bibliography, for Woods, Robert H., I see Official records of the Union and Confederate navies in the War of the Rebellion. Government Printing Office with a Url link to Google Books.
- For the oldie-newbie-near-shut-in, there is also Cornell University’s “Making of America” online. I'm not sure where or whether it fits into the naval bibliography as organized (same thing, double cite by links?). But it is HUGELY powerful to search online just falling through pages and pages of text letting the machine do the scanning.
- Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies. Author: United States. Naval War Records Office Title: Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion Series: Office memoranda (United States. Naval War Records Office) Publisher: Govt. Print. Off. Place of Publication: Washington MoA Volumes: Series I, vols. 1-27; Series II, vols 1-3 (1894 - 1922)
- Also online, some few references to naval operations can be found not noted in the naval record in the The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Author: United States. War Dept. Title: The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Other Title: Official records of the Union and Confederate armies Publisher: Govt. Print. Off. Place of Publication: Washington MoA Volumes: Series I, 1-53; Series II, 1-8; Series III, 1-5; Series IV, 1-4 (1880 - 1901)
- For online primary document related to law, history and diplomacy, the Avalon Project at Yale Law School.
- With access to documents such as the Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 where Article the Tenth says, “Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object.”
- That ties in nicely with Paul Johnson's account in Birth of the Modern of how the U.S. navy fought slavery in the antebellum period. The mission of the African Squadron was to disrupt the international slave trade, but then as now, promotion came from Congress -- and alienating any member of Congress can be career-ending. So there were no slave traders taken to DC for trial in the court of original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court until Lincoln. This, some U.S. legal scholars determine must mean that nothing was done aboard U.S. ships, and their findings have found their way into the U.S. historiographical account.
- But JOHNSON reports that a slaver interdicted by a U.S. frigate was towed to Sierra Leone. Approaching harbor, the U.S. ship came alongside a British warship. The U.S. ship's captain gave an affidavit to the British commander to the effect that those in custody were apprehended aboard a slaver. Parliament had declared slavers outlaws, so no trial was needed, they were summarily hung. The U.S. ship proceeded into port to discharge the cargo to their freedom, and auctioned off the prize. My only regret is that in downsizing, I let the volume go for a public library sale.
- And when I had the volume and made a sourced contribution with page number citation, in some slavery section in some article, and it was reverted ... but I was younger then and I simply folded ... lost opportunity, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TVH, it's always nice to know there are other 'history buffs' out there who do a lot of reading and research. Yes, there are many sources on line. My (hard text) library isn't quite as volumous as yours ("500 books" being your official limit) with only a few dozen sources for history gracing my humble bookshelf, so I make use of the many available e-books on line, many of which can be downloaded in PDF and/or EPUB format. Indeed, being able to search through 100's of pages for a name or phrase is a tremendous help when one is trying to write articles. (My next investment will be to purchase Dumas Malone's six volume biography on Jefferson - ebay often has sets being sold at affordable prices). The trials and exploits endured by captains and seamen in those days makes for truly fascinating reading, with boys becoming men at the age of 12, compared to today where we have many of our boys in their 20's who are still brats. When you get the chance read the Stephen Decatur and John Rodgers pages, both of which I rewrote almost from scratch and have added bibliographies/citations for. Your input and/or contribution would be welcomed. One of my latest creations is Blockade runners of the American Civil War with a bibliography one would be hard pressed to fit on one shelf in 'material form'. Sometime soon I would like to add material to the Jefferson page covering how he built the US Navy, introduced the regular use of gunboats and other smaller vessels and how they hunted down and captured slaver ships. These efforts eventually culminated in the creation of the African Squadron in 1819. Andrew Hull Foote is a good source for this, among others. Glad to see you becoming familiar with 'the ropes' so quickly here at WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article bibliography v. 'further reading'
- In an article, what do you think of 'further reading' versus 'bibliography'? Can the bibliography of the article be expanded or subsumed into 'further reading'?
- In Battle of Fort Pulaski I categorized the bibliography into 'Further Reading' to put them into a framework -- as an alternative to providing annotations at each title, because conciseness is a virtue in an online encyclopedia. In the Pulaski case, 'Archives' for primary sources, 'Memoirs and biography' - U.S. and C.S. -, 'Monographs' for scholarly treatments -- which are few, and 'Curriculum' to draw the eye of lesson planners among secondary teachers so near and dear to my heart. Is there any guide for standardized bibliography or further-reading sections on the military pages?
- Your note about Malone's biography suggests some sort of division in the bibliography at Thomas Jefferson. Primary sources should be kept in tact, but I think it might be useful to divide volumes which are Comprehensive survey such as Malone's, versus historiographic monographs by areas of study -- such as diplomacy, presidency, women's studies, politics - like Adrienne Koch, "Jefferson and Madison: the great collaboration" is one of my favorites to explain the Act of Religious Freedom and the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions, and Journal articles.
- 'Great Collaboration' is still boxed unpacked in the garage, it's the source for my next 'Thomas Jefferson' contribution. I hate moving. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for Further reading should be listed under such heading any time they're not used as ref's but are still useful for their (alternative) content. There have been times when I could not cite an item with existing Reliable sources but instead cited it with a source found in Further reading. As you may have noticed in the Bibliography of early American naval history I have denoted the primary sources with a bold 'P : ', however, in bibliographies like the one for Jefferson the Primary sources are listed under their own subsection. As primary sources usually have to be used in conjunction with a secondary source it's best that they be listed separately on any given history page. Generally not used a sources by themselves, there are exceptions regrading their usage. i.e.Widely publicized Primary sources, like Jefferson's letters or Notes on the State of Virginia, can be used, per editor and publisher, to cite various items by themselves but caution should be used. i.e.No No original research. -- Gotta run. More talk later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- good info. thanks.
- Next. are ORA and ORN allowable in the same way as "Notes on Virginia", to take note of events, names, dates -- "On November 5, Jones' attack was reported as failing at the farm barn." but NOT grounds to make a judgmental characterization such as -- "On November 5, Jones was routed in the worst defeat suffered in the entire conflict." -?-
Insert : A certain amount of human embellishment is allowable. e.g. A great victory. The important thing is not to change the facts and/or meaning. Discretion is the key, realizing that almost any statement containing such adjectives (i.e."worst") can be so challenged. As long a statement is not flagrant with its presentation of such an event most editors will have no issues. That's been my general experience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- also, I want to work this next week on figuring out proper coding so a note < ref > automatically generates a line in the bibliography. My last contributions to Blockade runners of the American Civil War as footnoted looks all out of place, cluttered and unprofessional. Rats. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In many presidential/historical WP:featured articles bibliographies the citebook (i.e.coding) is used that links refs, imbedded in the text, with the reference notations under a section most often referred to as References, which in turn are linked to the given source in the bibliography. Example: Go the the Stephen Decatur page and click on any reference number in the text. As usual it takes you to the reference section where the page number/reference is listed. To view the title, and other information, click on the page number. You can use the 'back' function on your browser to take you back to the page/text were you started from. Convenient, when you're reading along. I'd recommend doing this first before reading further:
To link a page reference used in the text to a given source listed in the bibliography Cite book uses the ' |ref= ' parameter.
{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Robert |title=American History |ref=Smith |publisher=Publisher-name, city |year=1967 |pages=123 |isbn=xxxx }}
Other parameters can be added but I'd concentrate on the basic ones used above first. -- Below is an example of a reference, used in the text that will link to references and the source listed in the bibliography.
<ref>[[#Smith|Smith, 1967]] p.123 </ref>
The above reference will be displayed (as shown below) in a References section, and will there link to the cite book listing in the bibliography:
Smith, 1967, p.123.
Hope this helps, any other questions feel free to ask away. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.
- I meant ORA as the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, and ORN as the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies.
- Some of my contributions have been dismissed out of hand elsewhere for using them as sources.
- The difficulty arises when the "predominant scholarship" in a field is made up of those with a career of reading microfishe of newspapers held at the university where they are enrolled in a doctoral program. First of all, 19th century newspapers are infamously partisan, second, they have limited information, third, the 'correspondents' of the day were not schooled at the Missouri U. school of journalism. They were effected a sort of stream-of-consciousness commentary from their travelogue-point-of-view, war as one's grand tour of Europe.
- Most importantly, reading scholarship which omits ORA and ORN, regardless of the author's wide understanding, inclusive impulses and ethical integrity, -- one cannot quickly see the context of events from extended, weeks and months-long military dispatches and reports on the subject, literally from ALL sides -- on land, at sea, infantry, cavalry, artillery, Union and Confederate -- relative to the events themselves. As opposed to say, the impact of the reporting of those events on recruitment quotas -- or elections returns.
- Thus the previous stub on the Battle of Fort Pulaski which dismissed the overnight shoot-em-up as insignificant, reflecting the local Savannah press as a subversive humiliation to the Cause by a disloyal incompetent, striking his colors after an overnight barrage from over a mile away without suffering casualties. Reading into either ORA or ORN shows an entirely different picture. Indeed, I really want to write a bio piece at WP which does Olmstead justice, since both his men, his commanders AND his foes, both at Pulaski, as a prisoner of war, Charleston Harbor fortifications engineer and those afterwards in his regular infantry command in the western theater -- all -- considered him admirable in every respect as a brave and able leader and opponent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using primary sources
Yes, using most primary sources by themselves is not allowed, which in many cases is unfortunate. Regarding the "predominant scholarship", I have had the same idea thrown at me for various reasons from time to time, only it was referred to as "modern scholarship". This is a paper argument at best because historians, past and present, have largely been a divided entity whose opinions on topics, esp controversial ones, vary considerably. This is esp true among historians regarding Jefferson as I'm sure you're aware. Next time some one tries to prop up their argument with such ideas simply enlighten them to the truth. Regarding Olmstead and Battle of Fort Pulaski, I can only suggest that you look for sources that corroborate ORA/ORN accounts, and if you come across a source, esp a so called "modern" source, that offers a radically different opinion, check to see from what sources it bases its account on. While we're at it, let me inform you that there seems to be a concerted effort on WP to 'rewrite' American history by various 'friends of America' who IMO (and others') are agenda/partisan driven, while other editors simply parrot what they've been told by their peers and college prof's. Evidently it takes some people many years to grow out of college. -- I'll let you decide that one. Some time ago ( 1, 2 ) [add: with the help of a couple other editors we] uncovered this sort of activity on the Jefferson page, where a few editors used that page as a coatrack to present their skewed and distorted view of Hemings and slavery. It has taken us since that time to get the page to read like a history account -- as compared to a political hit piece. Be aware. Meanwhile, I will help you look into sources for Olmstead that reflects ORA/ORN accounts. Add: There are lot's of existing sources in various bibliographies to check, many of them available on line, partially readable to completely, and Google book search is also a good place to find material overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- okay. thanks for the encouragement. and, this sort of agenda writing has white-washing properties in historiography which tend to not only 'color' narratives, they also cover up interesting and important differences, rendering historical characters with a broad-brushed sameness masking the distinctions in each individual. General George H. Thomas -- the "Rock of Chickamauga" came from Southampton County, Virginia, of Nat Turner Rebellion fame, AND
- Where anti-slavery Quakers in the southern half of the county along the North Carolina border used to make periodic collections in their church services to go to Norfolk and buy slaves literally off the boat to grant them freedom and provide education, tools and land to live as freedmen farmers among them.
- AND where a majority of 1861 voters did not agree to secession, AND where black and white Southampton Virginia Turners today, directly descended from the murderers and the murdered of Nat Turner's Rebellion, now attend the same Baptist Church as a statement -- in their view -- of faith and racial reconciliation to the nation and the world.
- Imagine my surprise as a Virginian, reading a "modern scholar" who used Thomas to represent a national significance in social history by ignoring his national military service or its relevance to emancipation, -- observing ONLY that following his Union affiliation in the Civil War, his three sisters never spoke to him again -- as a demonstration of their southland vitriolic hatred of all things yankee? Or, a 3:1 family context for proclaiming that generation's white Southampton, Virginia backwardness? Or, as a universal imperative, you can never be more than what your sisters allow? The sisters did shun George, so much was indeed true, but the development in that family's relations ALONE was not an example of national significance without more information -- I do not know what the sisters' share of the family inheritance turned out to be, for instance -- the significance of Thomas was not in any recognizable Virginian historical CONTEXT that might be required by scholarly integrity ... but as this passage may now approach wp:soapbox, forgive me. On the other hand, thanks for the assist at 'blockade runners' notes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson read of it, we should too
Concerning my interest in finding an understanding of Thomas Jefferson and other historical figures by reading the histories they read, I found a BookNotes interview with Michael Palenti featuring the history of the Roman Republic that Jefferson would have known, as found in Palenti’s " The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome " – excerpts are online at an Amazon Look inside feature.
Related to state interposition in the general government's rule: Caesar was still working with the tribal assemblies and still encouraging the people`s tribunes. The tribunates were -- the tribunate was a people`s council, sort of, made up of 10 tribunes, who had some remarkable powers for that day. They [the tribunates] could even veto certain senate acts, for instance, and they could initiate legislation with the assemblies. And in a sense, they were quite a democratic group.
Related to aristocracy in a republic: It was a strange aristocracy because it was somewhat hereditary, but it also was electoral. That is, the way your family became an aristocratic family was if you had someone in your lineage who had been elected to the highest office, which was consul, Roman consul. There were two consuls elected every year. And usually, they were elected from the families that already were aristocratic families. [The first in a family elected was called a “new man”.]
Related to use of latin ultra party in antebellum U.S. politics: The more conservative aristocratic group -- "conservative" might not be the word -- reactionary. They were really looking to go back to a pre -- constitution that was 200 years before. They didn`t want that. They wanted the whole thing, and they would not compromise with Caesar in any way. And they encouraged Pompey to raise an army, and they -- and they demanded that Caesar disband his army and come back unarmed.
Related to Parenti’s historiography: Perhaps my most successful book is "Democracy for the Few," which … takes a critical perspective of the American political system and argues for more democracy, more reforms ... [callers had previously requested to hear Booknotes from –Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti, Parenti was Lamb’s third interview with the trio. -- The interview includes an historiographic essay in which Marx and the other treatments of the Roman Republic are characterized as “following the Cicero line”, all apologists for the ultras, dismissing the political assassinations and civil wars of the reactionary aristocrats as a few “immoderate actions” against those who had constitutionally won the secret ballot, rent controls, and land reform. See BookNotes: Michael Parenti. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As this applies to interpretation of Jefferson's interposition, historians often anachronistically read backwards into Jefferson's thinking -- extrapolating from interposition into an unwarranted predilection for secession. Jefferson Davis certainly did, and that is certainly a time-worn use of history -- but it is not good historiography.
- I would rather arrange and interpret things chronologically -- and see -- that (a) the study of the Roman Republic at its end, could lead one such as Jefferson to imagine (b) the state legislatures as the people's tribune councils (in Rome's districts), with veto powers over some aspects of the legislation of general government (in the Roman Senate). -- state legislatures were NOT be be the agents of the destruction of the "empire of liberty" by state secession, any more than tribunes of the Republic destroyed the Roman Empire.
- They were ONLY meant to be -- in Jefferson's formulation -- a protection of the people's liberties within the union. As I remember, that is the upshot of "Jefferson and Madison: the great collaboration" -- the underlined and annotated, cross-referenced paginated and inside-the-back-cover-indexed copy in the garage I am still looking for.
- I believe that Jefferson actually used the phrase tribunes of the people for state legislatures -- and modern scholars, not having learned their history from the ancients, NOR from historians who have read the ancients -- the narrow contracted fields of history reading more and more of less and less -- modern scholars now white-wash and water-down tribune into an amorphous 'representative' sort of re-imaged modern advocate evoking a kind of trial lawyer or Hyde Park soapboxer -- habitually re-framing the past into one-dimension, as I say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting stuff, TVH. Indeed you are very well read and write same. Yes, though there are some very learned historians here in the 21st century, many so called 'modern thinkers' are simply too jaded and peer-driven in their thinking, if we must refer it to that, when they try to 'sum up' events of 100 and more years ago.
Olmstead
In any case, I looked into Olmstead, the commander at Fort Pulaski during the seige. From what I have read he surrendered the fort after one of the five walls was breached by cannon fire, which allowed cannon shot to hit the powder magazine within. Seems to me this was a wise decision, the fort falling because of no fault of Olmstead. Correct? In any event I would be interested in helping you create/build the Charles H. Olmstead article. As you know, Savannah was one of the main ports of entry/departure for blockade runners so the new Olmstead article could link to and relate to Blockade runners of the American Civil War page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On blockade runners In the Further Reading at Battle of Fort Pulaski and in notes -- needs work as we discussed above -- Blockade Runner 1861-1865 By Angus Konstam. Sketch with description, p.9. , History of the Confederate states navy, Scharf, J. Thomas, 1887. Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by River: the naval history of the Civil War” 1962. Reprinted unabridged 1989 Da Capo paperback.
there is Olmstead, Charles H., “The Memoirs of Charles H. Olmstead”. Hawes, Lillian, editor 1964 Collections of the Georgia Historical Society 14.
General History of Fort Pulaski] at the National Park Service recounts the Olmstead's defiant reply to the demand for surrender, wall breach, magazine penetrations and command decision to surrender. The on-again, off-again recurring fort-beseiger artillery duels amidst the continuing Union bombardment in the 'Pulaski' article is found in ORA-union accounts, and Gen. Gilmore's published monographs found online.
I remember a biography, perhaps a 19th century eulogy as a small book of Olmstead online ...
Then there is online searching in Official Records, Army for his name. His western regimental histories -- First Georgia (regulars) which I found before online, he was breveted to brigadier or served in the place of one for a season in the chaos of the western army command shuffle? must look again. There may be a regimental history for First Georgia (volunteers) also out there. Olmstead was responsible for food allocation to freedmen in Savannah during the first months of Reconstruction, and made subsequent addresses to veterans organizations. That may have come from notes in an archive of his papers made by the library collections department online. Must look again.
The two external links you included above are dead links. (now fixed) In any case, there might be a way to include some of Olmstead's writings (i.e.primary source) if we are unable to corroborate them with secondary sources. i.e.Instead of making a statement and using Olmstead's writing as a source we simply mention that e.g.Olmstead claimed in a letter, etc, etc -- or perhaps something like this .. In an 1865 speech Olmstead maintained .... I'll check into that a bit further. Also, ORA are not necessarily a primary source if they were written by another party some time after the date/event in question. Primary sources involve a person(s) who was present and/or directly involved with the date/event in question. Official records are not necessarily primary sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(I fixed the address/links above. Somehow you managed to include the '|' (pipe) character at the end of both Url addresses.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I know that big-hat wiki-editors are giving this some thought, but I suppose with enough time, the wiki-code issue will just be overcome by the progress of events. I fear I am not one of Tom Friedman's "digital natives", but an "immigrant" -- meaning I am not fluent in writing code as is widely understood and mastered by "anyone under 30" -- oh ! -- I never thought I would see the day that I would rue THAT phrase --. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
‘Comprise’ in naval terminology.
Recently at Bombardment of Cherbourg, an editor did a drive-by revert of ‘comprise’ in naval terminology into ‘compose’. There is a somewhat lengthy discussion on Cherbourg talk page, also with Bryan Henderson AKA Giraffedata, who is an accomplished linguist. He led me through his Essay on “comprised of” on his talk page. A year ago, I spent two months of my adult life getting this reply:
“It's perfectly acceptable to say a task force comprises certain ships and squadrons. Articles that say a military unit "is comprised of" smaller units can be changed to "comprises" or "is composed of," depending on nuance ... So yes, I support "The task force once comprised the USS Laffey, Cory, Reuben James and Bainbridge." … "The division comprises destroyers" also works for me, as long as there is nothing in the division that isn't a destroyer. And later, Many times "is comprised of" simply turns into "is." "Comprise" is actually a relatively arcane word and the author who writes ‘A is comprised of B’ probably isn't really thinking of inclusion at all, but composition … “ The 'Cherbourg' article then sported 'comprised' unmolested for a year.
Is there a way of generally educating in a NAVAL TERMS sidebar or some such on military project pages for military buffs who speed-read naval history articles with the best of intentions?
I would also point out that the all-encompassing term for military equipages is spelled materiel in the US Army and Air Force, from Napoleon’s armies, BUT it is material in the US Navy and Marine Corps from Nelson’s navies. I once worked for a defense contractor where I could see the spell checks cancel each other out, back and forth -- depending on the military background of the last desk a u.s. government contract touched.
I would like to see a truce between army and navy on wikipedia military pages like that between the Queen’s English and American English, based on the subject matter. Or, a NAVAL TERMS sidebar is needed at naval history articles, somehow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Queen’s English v American English? I didn't realize this sort of controversy existed in any appreciable proportion. If there are two significant groups of editors who favor Queen's and American English I would suggest using American English for US Navy ships and the Queen's English for ships of the Royal Navy. Also, as far as I know, the closest list/page we have for NAVAL TERMS is the Glossary of nautical terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I meant to apply the working accommodation achieved for English -- Br. v. Am. -- to be applied to armed forces -- naval v. military. I went on 'Glossary of nautical terms' to add Task Force, comprise and material, with explanation for each at Talk there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice additions -- but I see someone has already taken you to task regarding the word comprise, which he/she has already deleted. At least this editor has explained the reasons why on the Glossary of nautical termstalk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, I made a four-point defense, and wrote a draft #2 as i understand his critique. Not sure, but I may have scatter-shot on the defense too much. Hope the Draft #2 helps everybody refocus on my main point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum
hi
I work at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are uploading materials to Wikimedia Commons. We have a number of documents that might be of interest to you - they are located at Wikimedia, Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.
If you are interested in writing articles/stubs, I may be able to provide you with pictures from our archives as well. We have a limited number of artifacts, also at Wikimedia, Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.
Let me know if I can help in any way, and please feel free to pass the word about these docs; I'd love to see some content generated around them....thanks!
P.S. Ford has stamp, too. Bdcousineau (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct about our holdings being about Ford and his presidency. However, I so appreciate you being open to mentioning this to others. Thanks for the mark-up too, cross-wiki - as you saw, I didn't know how to do that. Have a pleasant evening. Bdcousineau (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might also want to inform editors involved with:
Gwillhickers, Nobody was "reverting" your edits. I merely wanted the full citation, not the abbreviated one, and we are both on the same page. Straightening out and amplifying the article seems important, as we are fast coming up on the bicentennial. There are a lot of books that are on line (and linked under "Further reading") which could be used to make this article better. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 7&6=thirteen. Okay, didn't mean to sound gruff. If there are no objections I would like to rename and reorder some of the sections. Yes, there is a wealth of material available on line also. A couple of months ago I created the Bibliography of early American naval history and have been searching far and wide for material to include in it. It's nearly complete -- of course that's my opinion. As general page fixing/building goes, often times I will also add sources to 'Further reading' (books not used in the article as references) hoping others will pick up the ball and help with the reading, writing and citing. Salute! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have at it. I think you will find that Further reading in this article (which I really worked hard on -- I don't want to claim it as "mine", WP:Own, but -- has most if not all of the sources. If you are working on this, you might think of it as part of a set. Jesse Elliott and Battle of Lake Erie. The Elliot article has not been much developed. And Perry is involved in the Battle of the Thames and strategic warfare on Lake Erie. The Elliott article has not received as much attention. The Battle of Lake Erie is mainly the work of others. While we have to comply with WP:MOS, I am a believer that form follows function. You create the article in the way that the material sets up. So I am not idiopathic on the subject, and suggest you give it your best shot. I am really up to my arse in alligators in real life, and unfortunately can't be of much help to you for several weeks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You recently edited the article for Commodore Robert Field Stockton. In that article under "Conquest of California" it shows that Commodore Robert Field Stockton was the "first U.S. Military Governor of California." Even though it was just for 7 days I show that John D. Sloat was the first U.S. Military Governor of California. Thoughts? Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only edits I have made to the page involved bibliography work Content added about Robert Field in California was entered by another editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right to reproduce Fisher's USS constitution vs. Guerriere
I'm interested in the rights to use the beautifully "rendered" painting of the uss constitution vs. HMS guerriere By AntonOtto Fisher. How do I go about securing the rights and 300 dpi jpg file from The Naval Historical Center?
Its for educational purposes.
Tinadunkley@comcast.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.42.70 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is in the public domain so there is no reason why you can't use it. The Naval Historical Center doesn't own the image. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. - pls help mediation quest.
In October, you added a couple of posts on Talk:United States, now in Archive 42. Since then I've had an interesting experience trying to have the first article sentence to read in part, adding the italics, "the extent of the U.S. federal constitutional republic is fifty states, a federal district and five territories." How do we get MEDIATION on a page by someone familiar with WP policy? I have tried two Requests for Comment in November - no response -, Third Opinion in December - when WP is wrong it does little harm - and selecting from the editor assistance list in January - no response in 30 days, so I am NOT trying to push over the Wikipedia process. Yesterday I posted my fifth request for assistance at the United States page -- this time at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, "Reliable source & scholar quotes v. primary & tertiary inference."
Since January, I have had support from Buzity, who is ridiculed as one to be "laughed out of any court" for his use of English in what I recognize as at times, Spanish syntax, so this probably has an "international editor contribution" dimension. Buzity contributes federal case law quotes from citations as though he were writing a judicial opinion, which I prize as a guide for further reading into the law, I try to restate his points in a short paragraph, and he remediates my replies. And he also found the "Welcome to the United States source: at U.S. Government Printing Office, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, and the territories ...” (Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.) A scholar looking at U.S. expansion from 1803, says, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [D.C.] and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232). These alone -- in my judgment -- a reliable source published by U.S. G.P.O., and a scholarly source in clear, directly quotable text, should trump unsourced editor inferences from a wikilink and a tertiary source list, but it does not yet.
Golbez, an administrator, agreed to “include territories”, but then reverted them, citing wikilink to the Insular Cases. He has since promised to revert any further edit. Buzity and I found law journal articles, court cases, statutory law, executive orders superseding Insular Cases. U.N. resolutions cited for "include territories" have secondary sources. I have a summary at "Include territories” summary for mediation, and at WP policies for “include territories”. Golbez added a citation using a tertiary source, but WP policy would prefer secondary sources. We are warned that we are only two, we can be banned from the article and talk page, we are illogical and we cannot change anything unless we agree to change everything in all related articles, none of which rings true.
Today I am excerpting all the "exclude territory" arguments, which I believe impartial editors will see are thin. In the mean time, could you look at my case at the two links above and reply here or on my page? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am trying to say, and the feathers are ruffled, and there is imperfectly written history out of chronological order. In the history of the territories, their status has changed from (a) 1898-1904 to (b) 1952-1963 to (c) 1990-2013. The territories were for the most part (1) directly overseen by the U.S. Army and Navy until the Truman administration in the 1950s, then (2) they were directly overseen by the Department of Interior during the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administration. Beginning in 1990 census data bases and accelerating after 9-11 all statutes and U.S.G. administration treat U.S. territories as a part of the U.S., including the governors council. The element of "direct" U.S. administration by Interior was Samoa, the last overseas possession, but congress took the function of constitutional ratification and cabinet veto power of Samoa legislature out of Interior's hands even for them I believe in the G.W. Bush administration.
_ _ In some ways, the "exclude" territories" assertions require (a) editor inference and speculation unsubstantiated in current literature or primary sources over the last fifty years, and (b) a editorial decision to admit no U.S. law, jurisprudence, and political practice such as popular referendums as described in secondary and scholarly sources. The subtext may be provided by the emphasis on place over citizens, sort of refighting the civil war of sovereign states over government of the people, by the people and for the people. The Supreme Court says ONCE CITIZENSHIP IS AWARDED, IT IS IRREVOCABLE, and the Court since expands constitutional provisions in the territories beyond that explicitly awarded by congress, so congress revoking all citizenship seems remote based on 100-year old court holdings; scholars say the territories have defacto "autonomous" self-governance; a federal district court ruling as stood five years without appeal, Puerto Rico is "incorporated" into the United States. So regardless of 100 year old theoretical speculation about congress revoking citizenship in the territories, there is no mechanism to do so enacted, and only a fringe believes that congress will ever act unconstitutionally ignoring supreme court holdings of half-a-century.
_ _ However that may be -- the feathers are, unfortunately already RUFFLED. The last editor taking exception to "excluding territories" tried to extend the scholarly observation of Dr. Julian Go that the political apartheid of the Insular Cases was race-based, unconstitutional discrimination by the same Court justices upholding Jim Crow law. The "change" editors personally attacked editors disagreeing as promoting "racism" by pushing the "racist" agenda of the Insular Cases, which is NOT the case here. That's about six months ago; I argue from sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be said that territories are not states but belong to the United States?, yes same as District of Columbia, which has a congressional organic act organizing local self governance and representation in congress as all other incorporated territories since 1805.
_ _ [Aside] It's three electoral college votes are constitutionally limited even were its population to increase 400,000 so as to equal states with four. And and scholars do not find lack of presidential voting disqualifying for "included in national councils" as provided by U.N. resolutions defining "self-determination" (Lawson and Sloane). However, unlike the territories with Article III federal courts, DC has an inferior Article I federal court.
_ _ So it may be said, "DC and the territories belong to the U.S. but are not states". But that did not seem acceptable to "exclude territories" editors, they want to join states and DC as equivalent in their residential U.S. citizenship, but deny that same status to territories which are to enjoy the "privileges and immunities of states" as specified in congressional organic acts and subsequent supreme court rulings. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re : Can it be said that territories are not states but belong to the United States?: Since this is what is already asserted, in so many words, on the Territories of the United States pages, and since the sources are consistent with your assertions, then it would seem there is no leg to stand on as concerns your contractor. If you need support I'd be more than happy to give it, however, half of what I'm reading in the debate becomes a blur, not because the writing isn't well done, factual or consistent, only because there is so very much of it. My advice would be that if you are looking for others to participate in the debate that both you and Golbez would do better to keep the exchanges in summary form, concentrating on the strong points, in layman's language as much as is possible. This will make it easier for others to chime in and give their opinion. If your arguments are strong it would seem they won't require such lengthy and detailed discourse. Let the other run at length, it will be to your advantage if your argument is summary and solid, with a few sources and examples on other WP pages to back it up. Having said that I am thoroughly impressed with your level of scholarship but now you need to perhaps present it in a way so that us 'common folk' won't get overwhelmed half way through the debate. :-) In the past I have seen several RFC's go completely ignored because the contentions of both (or all) parties involved were so very long and detailed. Remember, the folks at RfC will probably not be familiar with the topic, so trying to educate them while seeking their opinion will very likely scare them off. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join in the discussion about the U.S. introduction describing the federal constitutional republic “including territories” or “excluding territories” at Defining the United States of America. At “Questions for parties” the arbitrator asks for each to voice a preference a) b) c) d), and brief rationale.
The previous editor taking the lead at Talk to find a compromise for "territories" positions, RightCowsLeftCoast said, “The more the merrier, IMHO. The more editors involved, the stronger a consensus is once it is formed."--RightCowLeftCoast 2:17 am, 1 Mar. Please join in if you have a chance. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining the discussion at the WP:DRN case on the United States article. I was wondering if you could help out by responding to the 8 questions that have been posed in that DRN case. Please provide responses in the sections that contain the questions. I'm trying to bring some structure to the conversation there, and additional, new discussion sections may impede progress towards a resolution. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noleander, Thanks for your time and effort. I have responded to questions 5-8. Will this be sufficient? I am hoping you are not becoming dismayed at the length of the discussion with all of the (sometimes pointless) details that often do not address the general premise of the debate: 'What constitutes the United States'. Again, many thanks for your valuable time and effort. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Jefferson
Gwillhickers, based on your expertise on Jefferson, as the page history demonstrates, I ask you to please see my contribution in the Secretary of State section and comment on the value of my submission. I'm new at this and I will surely benefit from the guidance.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent contribution, and well sourced! Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Word of advice
You may want to tone down your last comment at the US talk page a little bit more. It's getting tough for me not to get heated as well, so I understand your frustration. You may be familiar with the concept of unclean hands or the phrase ex turpi causa non oritur actio. Without implying that your comment dirtied your hands or was dishonorable, my take on these re: WP is that if someone's going to start getting incivil, let him do so himself, rather than harming your own appearance by becoming incivil yourself. Outsiders may easily quickly latch on to a single comment even when the overall interaction demonstrates you were in the right. Feel free to disregard what I'm saying here... but I just thought I'd make the suggestion. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mendaliv, thanks for your words of advice, but I guess that was the last straw. It wasn't so much that he kept dragging his feet with opinionated arguments (that should have been raised before he voted) than it was for his complete lack of respect for WP and the process of trying to establish consensus, as well as for all the other editors who participated. For whatever it's worth, that was the first time I have ever let lose with a cuss word in all my years here at Wikipedia. Given our friend's arrogant (zero good faith) user page I thought it appropriate to give him a straight dose of his own medicine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My user page is insulted, sir. Just look at poor Toby's face! --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Syllogism for “a part of”
I added an insert subsection at Talk:United States, "Syllogism for “a part of”. I would appreciate your look-see. Thanks in advance.
[aside] For context, Golbez, Mendaliv and CMD can be reasonable, although they may slip occasionally and they persist in an incomplete view on points. Other personal-attack-only fellas bullied Buzity off in January I think, or work intervened to release him for the moment. My feeling is the three good-'uns ought to be cultivated, however difficult it may be at any particular exchange at a Talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, TVH. I meant to get back to you sooner. Needed a break from the USA-talk page and went back to what I love to do most -- research and write about early American history. I took a quick look yesterday, at your request, and frankly, I ran out the door and left my apple pie on the front steps. Seems everyone is still hacking out sources and taking shots at 'includes' or 'doesn't include'. To get back into the fold I see I will have to do a lot of additional reading, on top of what I'm doing here in this neck o' the woods. If you could just give me a summary as to what 'the' debate is about at this juncture I'll come around and see what I can do. Mulling through past court cases and comparing them to others in terms of 'context' and what 'was' meant and 'not' meant seems like it will just sustain the never ending debate over there, but enough of my optimism. We have the lede that we voted on, so if you could just tell me what the 'prime' objective is at this point I'll be glad to help out if I can. If anything, at least I can remind some of our esteemed fellow editors what rules they are trampling into the ground, or ignoring, aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the intro at 'United States' is very much appreciated. Thank you for shepherding the process. About the rules. The ETs have so far given three sources, all of which support “including territories”, but they misstate the sources. At some level, the rule somewhere must be, Editors must read the sources they reference. I suppose I need to use the FACTCHECK element of Wikipedia? This morning I found Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Is that it?
Insert : If you can prove that a statement is not factual you can indeed pursue the matter in terms of WP policy -- whether this involves a simple discussion or involves taking the issue to a RfC or Noticeboard is another (discretionary) matter. The item in question should be a clear 'non fact' if you bring the matter to a noticeboard.
Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review gave us the modern era territories have a constitutional status “equivalent” to [‘incorporated’] states. There must be a rule that a source can mean what his words say, modern territories are not peopled with second-class 1910 non-citizens.
Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference, Most in the U.N. see U.S.-PR situation as “acceptable”, or “benign” ,“adequate under contemporary law”. Only a “small minority [sees it] as unlawful per se.” The "situation" is commonwealth, there must be a rule against equal weight to fringe ideas.
Now, Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, In the Insular Cases, the court found that “Puerto Rico was not a state but rather a territory held by the United States”, likewise Hawaii and Philippines. [No territory reported as an 'incorporated' territory has ever had all the rights and privileges of a state before being admitted as a state. There must be a rule that forbids non-sequiturs.
->> Further, with Vignarajah, we have notes citing examples of "the literature" for both Torruella, and Sparrow using the very articles I have previously, so the snarky dismissal of their scholarship should not stand any longer, by some sort of rule.
I’m only about half through, but it is nice to read a secondary source summarizing the cases and putting them in historical perspective. I agree -- the editor synthesis of primary-source cases is tedious, -- but that’s why we have secondary sources to allow THEIR judgment play in summary. Nothing more for now until I read the source through, but more later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added some content and sources on the U.S. Talk page regarding the U.S. Census Bureau that should give added perspective in terms of 'include' and 'exclude' regarding territories. As the court cases vary and can easily be interpreted differently, so it seems, perhaps it's best not to try and establish the 'include' argument from just this one perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the barnstar for the C18th list. I was going to add captures to the C19th list (which you created) but these would seem to be outside the scope of the list as you laid it out. Maybe you'd reconsider the scope, and add the C19th captures from the 1801 papers onwards. I take it you have access to the British Library archive on C19th newspapers (via library card?). Good keyword searches would be "privateer", "taken" and "captured". Mjroots (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following you here. The 19th century list' already includes ships captured in 1800, 1801 and forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a google search for 'British Library archive, ships captured' but the results were mostly, if not all, sketchy and irrelevant, per usual for google. In any case the ' Archive would seem to be a good place to look for other captured ships however I'm not a subscriber. Is this a 'pay for' source? If there is a way to generate a list of 19th century captured ships from this source I would be most interested. Sometime soon I would like to nominate the List of ships captured in the 19th century for GA, or even FA, but I would like to think the list is near complete before I do. I sent out a letter to most other members of WikiProject Ships asking for help and/or feedback but apparently it has not been received with much enthusiasm. At this point any help you can offer would be a big help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
British Library is a subscription only source. It is available via UK libraries and educational establishment due to a sponsorship deal. I'm afraid that there are going to be many captures in the period 1801-10 that you won't have entries for on the list. Maybe you can find a UK-based editor willing to trawl through the papers and add entries as appropriate. It may be that some years will need individual lists. I've been mulling over the creation of lists for individual years covering 1793-1800, but have decided to leave it for now. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. Given the great numbers of ships you alluded to perhaps it would be best to confine the list to significant(+ -) ships, as I image there must be scores of other vessels listed in 'Archives that played little to no part in American and British (or any) naval history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've seen the 1790s section of the C18th list. The early part of the C19th list will look much the same if a similar course is taken. Will leave it for you to decide for now. I may come back to it eventually. Mjroots (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that section is quite overwhelming. Perhaps the best way to approach this venture is to include ships that are only mentioned in relation to famous or notable ships, wars and battles. Seems if we try to include every vessel captured by every (e.g.never heard of) ship/privateer we will be forever trying to reach a near completed list -- and as an after thought, such lengthy lists will only tend to obscure the more notable ships. In any case I am thoroughly impressed with your search, time and great efforts. Much thanks for your comments and insights. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the merchant ships are less worthy of mention than the naval ships. The more notable ships are identifiable by the fact that they have articles. Unfortunately, most merchant ship will fail WP:GNG, which is why they are not redlinked. Naval vessels likely to pass GNG have redlinks. Mjroots (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to suggest merchant ships, as a rule, are less worthy of mention -- indeed some merchant ships are worthy of mention, and like you say, deserve red (or even blue) links. If anything, the non linked vessels do provide reference, and perhaps context for the histories involved and for the list overall. Salute! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
April 2013
Your recent editing history at Boston Marathon bombings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I am warning you, with an invocation of WP:BLP, which also applies to the recently deceased. You haven't even discussed the matter on the talk page. "Consensus needed for deletion of good faith sourced content" is bullshit: in BLP matters, as you should know, consensus and agreement with our BLP policy is needed for the inclusion of potentially damaging or controversial material.Drmies (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted one of your wholesale deletions of properly sourced material (spanish consolute info). This was an attack on many counties, not just the USA. Please respect other's additions. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you addressing me or Drmies? It wasn't I who made that particular deletion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - my bad, wrong talk page.Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were addressing me, no doubt. Both of you would benefit from a reading of Wikipedia:Consensus. In addition, Legacypac, that bit of trivia was indeed that--trivial. ("not just the USA" is complete bollocks, BTW.) See the talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boston Marathon is a highly international event. If we are going to delete whatever one person considers trivial, there would be little left of the article. Where is the consensus in deleting info without discussion. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "info" is discussed on the talk page, because I put it there, and another editor agrees with me. So, I've done the discussing part--you haven't. Claiming that the article would be gone if "trivial" things were cut is just silly. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not insert the original text, just restored it minus the youtube link. Multiple editors disagreed with the deletions, no consensus reached, but hey, IAR is the "official" stance.Legacypac (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions are all over the map. We need to establish a new consensus now that it is common knowledge that many reliable sources are citing the IDs of the deceased victims. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this late date we should try to establish a new consensus. Also, the article is not a biography about 'any' person, so citing WP:BLP is not exactly appropriate. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do know that. Read it a bit more carefully now: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR)
Care has been taken, many reliable sources confirm, it's now common knowledge, even in China, and none of the three core content policies have been violated, not even in the least. Again citing BLP was not exactly appropriate. Time to move forward. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's entirely fair Dennis. That information was published by the University, which should be a strong indication that it had been released by the family, and then the major papers, including the Washington Post which was linked on the talk page, at 18:38. In fact, someone had posted the University release at 16:29. It was quite widespread before the majority of the issue began on the talk page. I think you're doing a good job dealing with the article, but the treatment of the victim name was not a model of how consensus should work. There was a very quick decision to "wait" by a few people that agreed, and then that was the anchor point to shut down future discussion, even when it was clear that the name was widespread. If there's battleground issues I don't think Gwillhickers is anywhere near the top of that list. Shadowjams (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts Shadowjams. -- Dennis: Regarding, "battleground behavior" may I remind you, that I was not the one making habitual deletions and moving and deleting talk page text around like a couple of editors did, behavior that provokes what you causally refer to as "battleground'" -- If as you say above "I really don't care what ends up in the article " then it would seem you shouldn't have been involved in the first place getting in the way of editors who do care. Perhaps your comment was made tong-in-cheek, as it seems like you do indeed care, just like the rest of us. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a guesstimate on what Dennis probably meant: he doesn't care what ends up in the article as long as it adheres to policy and guidelines. Moving talk page posts around is acceptable if new posts are on old topics and properly belong under that old heading, so that a discussion can be centralized. "Habitual deletions", well, whatever--deletions are acceptable if they are done in agreement with the BLP policy. By contrast, habitual re-insertions are not OK if they are not in agreement with that policy and not supported by a consensus. BLP information should err on the side of caution, something I've said a few times already; I'm saying it again because you seem not to have heard it. That's quite aside from verifiability and all that. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I already made a "guesstimate", hence my acknowledgement that his comment was perhaps tong-in-cheek. My restoration of talk page text was not habitual, thank you, it was made in response to inappropriate deletions/hatting on a talk page that had numerous discussions taking place, and I don't need consensus to discuss the issue or to repeat a point if I feel the need to do so. Wikipedia is not Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, so kindly not invent rules to control discussions you are not in agreement with -- it's quite obvious you are doing so. New developments were occurring by the hour and a new section was needed about consensus at the end of the talk page. This for some reason amazes you. And to "err on the side of caution" most certainly applies when stories are new and info' is sketchy -- not days later when multiple reliable sources have confirmed (very) basic information. Having said that, it's time to cool your heels. Lu-lingzi's name has finally been honored and included along with the other's, as it should have been as soon as it was confirmed. See you around. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your thoughts. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tadeusz Kościuszko
This article has now been passed. I made a series of changes myself to complete the checklist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping with the Kościuszko GAN, I was about to start addressing the issues today - but I see you did it all for me. Thanks / Dziękuję :) PS. Also, I think Casimir Pulaski will be passed in few days, that will make two most popular Polish-American milhist personas into GAs :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You removed this from the Jefferson article while it was still active as an FP nomination (which still has not been officially declared).--Godot13 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained in my edit summary, the image did not relate to any of the topics mentioned in the Thomas Jefferson article. If however you can add some historical background regarding this check, it, and the image, would be most welcomed. Do you know why Jefferson made a check out to himself? I'll tell you what. I will place the image in the Presidency section (2nd term), since it remotely relates to his presidency, but if some one else chooses to delete it then we better find some historical info' that directly relates to this check. This way, no one will have a solid reason to remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gwillhickers, St Helena was captured on 6 April 1830, but the pirates then left her after they couldn't sink her, but thought that she would sink. Her surviving crew reclaimed her later that day after the pirates had left. St Helena left the HEIC's ownership later that year, but then went on to have a long commercial career. I have added the 1830 year to the paragraph on her departure from St Helena, so that should clarify things; thanks for the heads-up. (As I am sure you have found, after one has worked on an article long enough, one knows what should be there, so one no longer necessarily sees what actually is or isn't there.) What are your criteria for including a vessel on your captured list? So many vessels were capture in the 19th century that any full list could be enormous. What are you looking for and what don't you want? That'll give me some guidelines on what I should add to your list as I work on articles. Regards. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you probably know I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century article and added the bulk of its content, citations and sources but I don't own the article. Yes, as there are thousands of captured ships, I try to include those that are of course famous along with those that are not so famous but were involved in wars or notable conflicts, so on that note it would seem St Helena more than qualifies. As 'capture' status goes, some ships were captured, used, sold, recaptured, reused, sold again -- whatever. As long as a ship is 'captured' once, it is considered a captured ship in terms of the captured ship's list. In other words, thanks for the addition. The ship has a fascinating, though tragic, history in terms of her crew. In any case, nice work! Btw, I added the 'See also' section. The hidden note in that section is just a general note, not addressed to you specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that. I knew had started the list, which I only discovered recently. I will try to keep an eye out for interesting captures. Thanks for the kind words re St Helena, and for the improvements to the article. No worries re the "See also". I had noticed that before on some other articles and thought it made sense. A major strength of wikipedia it the possibility of luring people down paths they hadn't known existed. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will see what I can come up with in terms of references. I can tell you this much -- the page needs more images as stamp articles go. The page would do well to have an example (stamp or cover) for each of the sections. My specialty is US stamps and of course my collection (much of which is tucked away in albums, cigar and shoe boxes) is 90% USA. My 'foreign' collection consists of British, Pre/Belgian Congo, French with a little of (almost) everything else thrown in. -- Btw, in 1943, the US Government issued a set of stamps honoring all the over-run countries by the Nazi regime. As Poland was the first country to fall, a stamp honoring that country was issued first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance request neutrality dispute Haller's Blue Army (Poland) page
Hello, to resolve an ongoing neutrality dispute on the Blue Army (Poland) page, I'm requesting any assistance possible from experienced Wikipedia editors to look at the 'Controversies' section of the Blue Army page, and review the text for possible bias. I'm not an seasoned Wikipedia contributor myself, in fact I don't really edit much at all. But, when I came across the Blue Army page, I was taken aback by the blunt and inaccurate way in which the subject matter was portrayed! The list of possible neutrality violations is extensive, and due to my novice editor status all my past attempts to modify the text have been dismissed as being disruptive, and subsequently reversed:
Possible neutrality issues found on the Blue Army (Poland) 'Controversies' section:
Neutrality Tag is constantly being taken down without reaching a final consensus on the subject matter. Weasel word are used to create an overall exaggerated impression of the events in question, and others are used to cast doubt on anything reported by the Polish side as being legitimate. POV and the use of questionable secondary source references, which contradict primary source accounts of the events. In this case the investigation conducted by the United States envoy to PolandHugh S. Gibson and his subsequent State Department report on the issue. The American envoy found that: many of the newspaper reports alleging antisemitism were planted by the German and Soviet governments, and had been inflated or even based on hearsay and confabulation. Also, the envoy reported that many of the "pogroms" were in fact food riots, where an even larger number of Christian shops were ransacked. Undue Weight specific events are taken out of context, such as: abuse of civilians during the military campaign by the Blue Army troops is automatically labeled as antisemitic. Thus, taken out of context, when in fact looting was not only restricted to jewish households.
In the end, I understand that this is a difficult subject matter, and that some of the troops did engage in open antisemitism. But, by breaking the above listed neutrality rules, the editor (Faustian) who wrote much of the section, is creating a false picture of the Blue Army, in which the reader comes away with the bias impression that "Pogroming" is the only thing the Blue Army did.
Again, for a quick snapshot of the primary source's account of the events, please see the United States envoy Hugh S. Gibson Wikipedia page. And, thank you for any assistance in this matter. --68.191.79.36 (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am hardly familiar with this subject as concerns pogroms, antisemitism, etc, so I referred your request to user Piotrus who apparently is more familiar with Polish/Jewish history. I will say this however, after looking at the talk page there the neutrality dispute tag should be in place. Good luck. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the general impression I got. Poor soul, among other things he/she mistook 'Tailor' for 'Traitor' -- now he's blocked for 48 hours. Hope he wasn't scared off. Seemed to have a genuine interest in the page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steamship
Thanks for the thanks!! I can't take too much credit. I was watching new edits for awhile and happened to notice that vandalism. I think the bots and editors catch most vandalism but some vandals can sneak changes in occasionally, at least for a period of time. It is a shame so much time needs to be spent on unproductive work by both the vandals and the watchers. It would be great if you could use my bibliographies or I can use yours. I have posted these so that I have the references readily available for the sources I use for articles. I also would be glad for them to be of use to others. Donner60 (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gwillhickers! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have looked into it and did some clean up added by another editor yesterday, along with adding some content, cited. Will look over the page again. I use the 'Cite book' format for sources. This keeps the source/bibliography information in the bibliography, which I have just cleaned up in the text, put there by the last edits/editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use cite books too, through I don't use the abbreviated citations style; I just move all the refs to ref section. I have no problem with your system, I am just not very used to it. Again, thanks for helping out! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reviewer you found is being way to demanding, but if you don't mind, you may actually get a GA out of that. Overall, DYKs require much less than GAs; as long as everything is referenced, they usually pass. MoS details, and comprehensiveness do not matter. See WP:DYKRULES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please explain why you reverted my edits here. I don't consider them to be 'meddlesome'. Such an attitude to fellow editors is very far from constructive. There is no policy to restrict oneself to certain types of edits, particularly not ones of your choosing. Please look at each line I altered and also read WP:PRECISELANG. Also be aware that 'as of', contrary to your assertion, does not always mean 'beginning in', and in fact does only sometimes. Thanks. Inglok (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Inglok, the phrase "as of" ineed means 'beginning with' or 'starting at'. i.e."as of 2007, 12.6% of the U.S. population was foreign-born". To simply say "in 2007, 12.6% of the U.S. population was foreign-born" doesn't exclude the idea that the same percentage could have existed in 2006. Saying "as of 2007" excludes 2006 and before. In any case I try to encourage editors to only make edits when they are really needed, e.g.correcting errors or if they can condense a phrase that is way over-worded, which was not the case here. Writing over another editor's edits shouldn't be done simply becuase one prefers a different grammar usage. I also see you made some tweaks that I over looked. Didn't mean to revert those. Go ahead and restore them if you like. Thanks for your interest in the U.S. article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gwillhickers. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Congrats on your new article on Edmund Bacon. I completed Meecham's bio of Jefferson, I'll make a point of chiming in as points are raised on Talk there. I found John V. Quarstein's 2006 "A history of ironclads" which grew out of a timeline laid down at the Mariner's Museum in Newport News. Turns out there were 34 Confederate ironclads, with six keels laid never delivered. I am reading Iain Dickie, et.al. 2009 "Fighting techniques of naval warfare 1190.BC-present: strategy, weapons, commanders and ships" in the 19th Century chapter, which includes a section on ironclads and an illustrated account of the Battle of Mobile Bay.
On Coles: Ordinance of 1787. You may recall editors dismissing my viewing the essentials for including a territory in the US federal republic. As it seems there is a crew now following me around dismissing my restatement of sources, without any sources of their own. Never mind. I'd like your take on the following take away. I plan to try to edit a US territory article about once a month for about a week each try, refining my research and presentation without disrupting or monopolizing (sigh). Here is the first cut from Coles which you linked for me (well, for WP readers).
Of course, after the first section, there is the history of the thing which must also be read for understanding. But the standard for Congress incorporation of US territories in the Downes case is that status of territories at the signing of the Constitution, as established in the Articles, that is, in the Ordinance of 1787. So here goes with Jefferson's committee report, first legislation, second legislation consolidating information from page 6-10 and 12-14.
From Ordinance of 1787 1856. Hist. Society of Penn. by Edward Coles.
Passed July 13, 1787, repealed that of April 23, 1784, [p.6-10, and 12-14.]: Providing for a temporary or Territorial Government;
1st. authorized adoption of laws modifiable by them:
2nd. to have a representative on the floor of Congress, with the right of debating but not of voting, until the population of 60,000, then
3rd. authorizing “the formation of a permanent or state government”; and
4th for its admission to the Union as a state on equal footing with other states.
Provided both the Territorial and State governments should be established on the following principle as a basis, which were declared to be articles of a charter of compact, unalterable but by the joint consent of the US, and the particular state with which such alteration was proposed to be made as with the original states:
1st. “That they shall forever remain a part of the United States of America.”
2nd. That in their persons, property and territory, they shall be subject to Congress, and to the constitution and subject to pay a part of the Federal Debt, as the other states.
3rd. That their respective governments shall be republican in form.
4th. That new states could not interfere with primary disposal of the soil by the US. That there be no tax on the property of the US.
5th. That non-resident land not taxed higher than residents. Water transportation will be forever free to US citizens.
Thanks for your comments. Looks like you've been pretty busy. You might want to check in on the United States#Settlements page, and the talk page as there is a lot of content I added involving the Virgina Company, indentured servants, Virginia act of 1670, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick overview. I like the balance of social history. After all that Jamestown, seems unbalanced unless something nice is added about new England/north need be said, about their education intellectual leadership on the continent – remember Madison et al in the south educated at Kings College NJ, Hamilton got a scholarship up there …
Natives, colonists exchanging gifts
Culture-clash. Native American gift-giving obligated the giver, for Europeans, the receiver.
Slavery is well written, but later editors will carve it up as being too long. Writers here are flying at 10,000 feet, they need to climb up to 30-50,000. Love the addition of Cromwell, hello, “the king’s Old Dominion”… The New England fisheries were important from this side of the pond because it extended that tradition of trading with other nations for commodities outside the mercantile system-- one could imagine an independent commercial life. Not sure how to wrap that in there.
I am discovering the large amount of humor directed at my earnest efforts, and I really am going to lighten up. However, just between you and me: My wikicommons-found illustration of a native American was at first deleted with an anachronistic WWI pinup “Columbia”, now we have the image, but the caption is altered. The demonstrative confrontation over betrayal in part due to cultural misunderstanding --- “Indians giving a talking to Bouquet” is reduced to a benign “trading”. I can find a source if it is called for. I suppose it is better as it stands than an image of slaughter one way or the other, which is what we had a few months ago.
As aside as the Euro pictured is French: Coles notes on p. 16, preexisting slavery under French in west. p.18 [in opposition to Northwest Ordinance prohibiting slavery,] “the long and extraordinary acquiescence in the continuance of the bondage of the French slaves … some contending for it under the treaty of 1763, and some under the terms of cession from Virginia -- was of course overcome by Illinois Governor Coles, Jefferson's secretary and neighbor, with at least moral support from Jefferson, whom Meecham describes as proposing the prohibition of slavery in Virginia west of the Appalachians at some point in his career. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, could you perhaps make some of these comments on the US talk page? We need the opinion of more than two or three editors. Mind you, given some the editors there, it would be best to keep comments simple. I know this must be tough for a man of your intellect and background. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ahah. yes, I need to gather myself for another charge at the breach, into the breach, into the breach, once more. Maybe some work on ironclads would do the trick as a moral equivalent to a wikibreak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly reentered my caption on the image, and it seems to have stuck five days. Recently I beefed up my User page with Userboxes at the top, and added the journeyman editor award. I made a recommendation on the ideas page for 'project manager' to be illustrated with a Gantt chart in addition to the existing stapler. Another suggestion on the page was for a Userbox with the info: This user recognizes WP is not a video game. which is too negative to pass, according to the guidelines, probably. But I can relate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going for a B rating, I've plugged in my first peer review request as a WP writer-editor, for Pauline Maier. I'm afraid the talk page is mostly a monologue with myself concerning editors who have flagged or deleted sections over the months. Would you give it a look-over?
Someone paid me the complement of suggesting that I might be her; nonsense, she's from Minnesota. My daughters gave me her latest book on Ratification of the Constitution for Christmas a couple years ago, and I found WP to have only a dated book blurb. So I started reading up on what she had written and some of her scholarly publication, finding her name on various history related boards etc., etc., so I strung together a biography of sorts, --- NOT your usual puff piece. She has been prolific in a substantial career, with major national honors and awards, academic offices and prizes.
But most importantly for me, I tried my hand at placing her in the spectrum of modern historiography. I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sorry to do this but this is not a justified use. ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In section "Beliefs and interests", you write "...and don't see a wall between the two and relaize both aspects...". Sorry we agree so rarely... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking out Schulz. -- Gwillhickers 17:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jefferson - Lemen connection
I call your attention to another aspect of Jefferson’s sustained and widespread anti-slavery influence in the Northwest Territories in two places, the second of which is misrepresented by WP editors declaring “most historians reject” when the source says no such thing. At 1) William Henry Harrison Note: Peck, J. M. (June 4, 1851). The Jefferson-Lemen Compact. [1915 edition]. Retrieved March 28, 2010. And 2) James Lemen Note: Macnaul, W.C. (1865) [transcribed]. The Jefferson-Lemen Compact.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good looking out. If and when you go to the page to correct the matter you will have my support. Suggest mentioning this on the talk page if you haven't already. -- Gwillhickers 07:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! This 1916 review was skeptical of the authenticity of the papers. This one from 2004 concludes, "In the face of the evidence and the doubtful validity of the Lemen family papers, however, the story of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact must ultimately be consigned to the realm of myth." (Here it is without a subscription.)
From p. 209 in the last link:
Scholars who have studied the life and career of Thomas Jefferson likewise call the story of the compact into serious question. Merrill D. Peterson wrote in 1960 that in spite of initial support from some historians, "the best authorities on the Old Northwest have for some time regarded it as false or unproven." He also noted that Julian Boyd, editor of the Jefferson papers, had found no record of any relationship between Lemen and the third President.81 Boyd himself commented directly upon the issue to author Lyn Allison Yeager in 1975 by saying "The so-called 'Jefferson-Lemen Compact' is without foundation ... that such a compact existed is inherently implausible and, with respect to Jefferson, wholly uncharacteristic."82
Such assessments notwithstanding, and in spite of compelling evidence, the popular perception continues to be that the story of the compact is essentially true. There exists at least one master's thesis relying heavily upon the Lemen family papers as research material.82 A substantial history of Southern Baptists in Illinois likewise found the papers to be credible, relying in part upon James Lemen Sr.'s alleged diary as source material.84 Not surprisingly, many internet locations continue to perpetuate discussions concerning the Jefferson-Lemen Compact.
I'm short on time right now, but one of you may want to add the cite to the article in question. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once you find the time, much of which you have spent hunting for sources and putting this message together, I suggest you do this. If you can take the matter beyond opposing speculations I may join in the fun. Cheers! -- Gwillhickers 07:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See comments there about the will. I think we should split it into a new article (it would make a nice WP:DYK), and shorten the entry presently in TK. Since it's your section, would you mind working on that? I'd be happy to help polish the resulting article for a DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the ref at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph (Sulkin, 1940) was also used to source some of the first paragraph, along with Gardner, 1942. I'm on it now. -- Gwillhickers 18:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have left you some comments on the talk page - great work, keep it up! The Land (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tadeusz Kościuszko may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
|last2= Leśnodorski |first3=Michał |last3=Pietrzak |title=History of the Polish State and Law) |ref=Bardach |location=Warsaw |publisher=Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe |year=1987}} <!-- [http://
I'm not following. When you say "my article" are you referring to the Kosciuszko article? I have no problem with your "my" reference, I just want to be clear on that. In any case, have I removed any cites that I shouldn't have? -- Gwillhickers 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding these links: <ref name="Herbst437"/>, it wasn't I who removed them. -- Gwillhickers 04:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My, yours, ours, pronouns like this are difficult on Wiki. But yes, I think you did remove some references that shouldn't been removed, in [9]. For example, you removed the reference from the end of the sentence ending with "to the buyout of the slaves". I very much appreciate your assistance, but I thought you'd want to know about the consequences of reference removal for future consideration. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arghhh !! I am so sorry for not remembering. I assumed this had happened just recently. Didn't realize this happened so long ago. I usually omit repetitive cites if the same one occurs one sentence after the other, but if you prefer to have them occur differently it is no issue with me. Again, my apologies for not remembering. Just a note: -- Many editors also remove repetitive cites, so if you want to keep them you'd better check on them on a weekly basis. -- Gwillhickers 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gwhillhickers,
Thanks for your welcome and your kind words. I also appreciate the hard work you've put into your informative stamp articles.BFolkman (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)BFolkman[reply]
Gwillhickers, I was wondering whether you'd be willing to take another look at this review, and see whether it's now ready for approval. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created this new article. Let's expand it, while shortening the entry about the will at the main TK article so that it causes no more problems for this nomination, shall we? The topic is notable and interesting, but does not need to be covered in such detail in TK bio's. I am using the yardtick of the TK biographies (PSB, Strozynski), neither of which dedicate much space to the topic. In fact, proportion-wise, both dedicate much less than we do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lane Gardner''' served in the U.S. Army eventually achieving the rank of [[colonel]] during the [[American Civil War having also served in the [[War of 1812]], the [[Mexican American War]] before
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Winfield Scott may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* {{cite book |title=Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, LL.D. |url=[http://books.google.com/books?id=ACsOAAAAIAAJ&vq=navy&source=gbs_navlinks_s |last=Scott |first=
For now, I've reverted your edit to List of American Civil War Generals (Union) adding John L. Gardner as he does not meet the very narrow standards set for inclusion in that list. As you know, he is on the brevet list, but with 583 substantive rank generals, we felt we could not include all 1600 brevetted officers. In order for a brevet general to make it to the list, their Civil War service has to be notable in some way (Medal of Honor winners, KIAs, etc.), or have notable post-war careers (i.e. Presidents, governors, etc.). Pre-war command of a fort that his successor abandoned doesn't really count, and to include him would expand the criteria to the point where the list would become unnavigable with size. If you disagree with my position, please feel free to start a conversation on the article's Talk page.
Additionally, if consensus does favor his inclusion, please pay attention to the formatting; specifying that his general's rank is a brevet in the brevet column is redundant, to-rank dates and specific service (regular army - USA - or volunteer - USV) should be included, and his departure from Moultrie is probably relevant as well. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you've outlined makes good sense. Sorry for my hasty inclusion. -- Gwillhickers 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editor of the Week
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for workhorse content creation and improvement over extended period of time with fantastic attitude. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
I nominate Gwillhickers as Editor of the Week. His interest in Early American and British Naval History (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships), Postal History (Philately) and History (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents), in general, provide a wide ranging level of WP participation. He endeavors to provide topical and literary cross referencing between articles and hopes that areas of interest in each article will serve to enhance one another. He has promoted 4 article to GA status, has 3 mentions @ DYK and has made considerable contributions to rewrites of dozens of articles. A workhorse with over an astonishing 72% mainspace in 37000 edits; his motto is "Humbly we go forth" which speaks to his purpose and his drive.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! GoPhightins! 17:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission of List of ships captured in the 19th century at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tadeusz Kościuszko may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
