User talk:Gwillhickers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)


Contents

3c stamp of USS Constitution[edit]

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)

Appotomax stamp[edit]

Hi - I've built upon your addition at Battle_of_the_Wilderness#Civil_War_Commemoratives by wikilinking the battles commemorated by the other stamps, but I found three possibilities for Appotomax - Appomattox_Campaign, Battle of Appomattox Station, and Battle of Appomattox Court House. I wasn't sure which of these the stamp was meant to commenmorate, so I chose Appomattox_Campaign, as it incorporated the other two. Is this right? --Badger151 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

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)

Alexander Graham Bell stamp[edit]

Alexander Grahm Bell 1940 Issue-10c.jpg

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.

Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


Foreign U.S. Air Mail[edit]

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)

Re:San Jacinto Battle Map[edit]

Hi, about two weeks ago you asked me about uploading that map to Commons. Rambo's Revenge has kindly given instructions on what to do: see User talk:Rambo's Revenge#Image help. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


Nice article[edit]

U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps I am seriously impressed :) mark nutley (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • 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)

Charles R. Chickering[edit]

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)

Found a few more for you :) saturday evening post front cover and Horace Greeley good luck mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I found your Charles R. Chickering draft through Google. Nice start. It looks like this article <http://www.afdcs.org/July15FirstDays.pdf> (see p. 10) was published just after you started your draft. Hope it helps. Regards —Diiscool (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pony Express - First Rider[edit]

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.

Tavington-dash (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Apparently the City of St. Joseph (which is the starting point for the First Westbound rider) agrees: (http://www.stjoemo.info/history/ponyexpress.cfm)Tavington-dash (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Famous Riders of the Pony Express[edit]

I inserted a citation for an article:(http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050320/news_1n20ponyexp.html) about the ad which is considered a hoax by Joseph Nardone, the national executive director and historian for the Pony Express Trail Association.

Tavington-dash (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Tavington-dash (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

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)

Ah, I just looked at your user page and noticed User:Gwillhickers/American History on US Postage Stamps. Could you fix the category "History of the United States". As per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing user pages they aren't supposed to be in there. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Listed as noted. GWillHickers (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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).

Contact[edit]

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).

Relaxing 'fair-use' size limitations for 1978+ stamps[edit]

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)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

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)

Pony Express article[edit]

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)

Interesting...[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

File:John F Kennedy 1964 Issue-5c.jpg[edit]

Please do not use Commons categories for files uploaded in Wikipedia only. They are supposed to be uploaded in Category:Fair use images of United States postage. Moreover, this file already exists on Commons: commons:File:Stamp US 1964 5c Kennedy.jpg because it's in PD. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Grant Postage stamps[edit]

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) ...

Jefferson talk page[edit]

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)

Lincoln stamp[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Fort Monroe Map[edit]

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)

Possible sources for ACW stamp article[edit]

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:

All are freely accessible and you may be able to find more like that. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


RFC/U discussion concerning you (Gwillhickers)[edit]

Hello, Gwillhickers. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers, where you may want to participate. Brad (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Thomas Jefferson[edit]

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)


Thomas MacDonough page[edit]

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)

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)

FYI: Italicization of Ships[edit]

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.

4.240.75.73 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
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)

Italicisation of Ships 2: Titles[edit]

There are two ways to go about italicising an article title.

  1. (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)
  2. (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)

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)
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)


Sources[edit]

Don't worry its not a problem, I just wondered if you might have access to a superior source. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Thanks very much, I'll be looking at that this weekend. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
[2] 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 Monster talk 20:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
Cool, thanks for the tips. Was John Rodgers the Commodore of the South American squadron in 1831? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work on minor Frigate and Sloop of War articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Nav box at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Thanks.[edit]

Thanks for the stamp. Good old Restauration. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Captured ships lists[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Yes, I was wondering about that sort of thing in general. Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See alsos[edit]

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)


December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

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.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link....[edit]

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)

Merry Christmas[edit]


Jefferson and Hyland...[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Reporting scholarship[edit]

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)

Talk:Thomas Jefferson[edit]

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."

(Jefferson, of course, was from the Chesapeake.)

Here are two more links.

Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RS for TJ[edit]

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)

Okay Parkwells, thanks for that. Greatly appriciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


TJF report from 1999-2000[edit]

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)

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)

Philately and the British Library[edit]

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!

Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(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[edit]

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)

Thanks! That did the trick. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see it. By the way, I think the article's title should be CSS Syren, as in Confederate States' Ship Syren. Manxruler (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
Aha. Right. Then the prefix SS (steamship) is probably better. Manxruler (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif 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)



Truman on stamps[edit]

Hi. See US_Presidents_on_US_postage_stamps#Harry_S._Truman, which says he's on 5 stamps. His article currently says two stamps. Do you know of a reliable source that lists all 5? Thanks. PumpkinSky talk 02:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
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?PumpkinSky talk 10:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
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? PumpkinSky talk 10:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there's something wrong with, I'm trying to figure it out.PumpkinSky talk 12:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)...It says '95 was 29 cents but it was 32? PumpkinSky talk 12:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Another error, the '99 one was 33 not 32 cents, here's the link [3]. I can use these 5 refs but the Scott's one with page numbers would cut it to one ref. PumpkinSky talk 12:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
Books without page numbers don't cut it under today's FA standards, so I'll use the SI pages. PumpkinSky talk 19:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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? PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Scotts_stamp_catalog_as_a_ref ... can you answer a ? there? PumpkinSky talk 22:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
Five that I know about, so right now Truman has 5 separate refs, the Smithsonian pages. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I mean, what does the book say?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Apollo Link[edit]

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)

Don't quite remember, but go ahead and restore the link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

naval history biography[edit]

- 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)

naval bibliography[edit]

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)
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)


Jefferson read of it, we should too[edit]

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)
- 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)
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.

‘Comprise’ in naval terminology.[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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 terms talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
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)

Documents from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum[edit]

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)

I am primarily interested in early American and related British naval history. Does the Ford Presidential Library and Museum have archives for US history in general, or am I correct in assuming most of their holdings are dedicated to Ford and related history? Here is the link to the category for those who want to take a look. Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.
Yes, there is a stamp for Gerald Ford.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

You might also want to inform editors involved with:
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Right to reproduce Fisher's USS constitution vs. Guerriere[edit]

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)

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)


A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your edits at Tadeusz Kościuszko. I think after you are done we can nominate it for a Good Article, wouldn't you agree? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Early American naval commanders[edit]

Category:Early American naval commanders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gold Star Editor[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out, I went ahead and put it onto my page. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for input at the DRN case[edit]

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)

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)


Thomas Jefferson[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 03:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent contribution, and well sourced! Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


List of ships captured in the 19th Century[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)


Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png 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)


St Helena (1814)[edit]

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)

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)
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)

An idea[edit]

I wonder if you'd be interested in minor fixes to Postage stamps and postal history of Poland. This article is C-class, and I'd be happy to review it for B-class, if only few more references were added. Otherwise, you may simply find it a nice read. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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)
Nice. I added some cats. PS. If you ever would like a fast reply from me, please ping me on my talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I always wanted the Rosetta 'star in my gallery :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi![edit]

07559 pierogi ruskie, sanok.jpg Pierogi Award
Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers,
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Kosciuszko and the Eagle of the Cincinnati[edit]

Was it you who added the File:Tadeusz Kościuszko 1.PNG? The Eagle of the Cincinnati may merit a stub, a Commons gallery (I added one, but it's red linked), and a reference (for Kosciuszko having it). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, wasn't me. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance request neutrality dispute Haller's Blue Army (Poland) page[edit]

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 Poland Hugh 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)

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)
I'll look into it, time permitting. First thought: our anon should register. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
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)

Steamship[edit]

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)


Kosciuszko refs[edit]

I think you introduced a different ref style that I know how to use comfortably. An A-class reviewer is asking (at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tadeusz Kościuszko) for all refs to be standardized (I think I might have added one or two since your conversion, using the old style). Could you update them to your new style? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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)
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)

DYK nomination of USS Ferret (1822)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of USS Ferret (1822) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

DYK for USS Ferret (1822)[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

United States[edit]

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)

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)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For creating Edmund Bacon (1785–1866), a new article with unusual depth. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


peer review request[edit]

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)


File:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

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)

DYK...[edit]

An issue has arisen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis N. Stodder. --Orlady (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis N. Stodder[edit]

Alex ShihTalk 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of interest[edit]

Since you participated in the review of Tadeusz Kościuszko for GA and/or A-classes, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1 (at this point there are few substantial comments there, and the article is likely to be failed due to lack of community's interest). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson - Lemen connection[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1[edit]

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)

The first para at Tadeusz_Kościuszko#Last_will is now completely unreferenced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
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)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

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)

Award[edit]

BoNM-Poland.png The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class
For your assistance with Poland-related articles, such as Tadeusz Kościuszko, I award you The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 2nd Class on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland. Dziękujemy! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Gwillhickers by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 10:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Monitor[edit]

Have left you some comments on the talk page - great work, keep it up! The Land (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

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://
  • <!--<ref name="<ref name="Lituanus">[[#Cizauskas|Cizauskas 1986]] pp.1–10 </ref>-->

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


DYK for Charles R. Chickering (artist)[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Upton Heath[edit]

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)

Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

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)

Gardner on the Generals' list[edit]

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)

What you've outlined makes good sense. Sorry for my hasty inclusion. -- Gwillhickers 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg 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)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

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! Go Phightins! 17:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Congrats, and thanks for everything you do here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
USS Constitution 150 Anniversary Issue of 1947-3c.jpg
Gwillhickers
Philately
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning October 20, 2013
A prolific editor with wide-ranging interests and article involvement to the benefit of our reader.
Recognized for
"Humbly, We go forth"
Notable work(s)
Blockade runners of the American Civil War, Bibliography of early American naval history, Bibliography of 18th-19th century Royal Naval history and List of ships captured in the 19th century
Nomination page


Herbert Barger[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers!

You have listed Barger as "at Norwich University". Can you tell me where this affiliation comes from? I've had a hard time finding anything about his background, and he describes himself as an "Independent Jefferson Research Professional" based in DC, and lists the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society as his only affiliation. Your link only goes to an expired Angelfire page. Thanks for any pointer! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Barger was Foster's historical assistant when they were looking into Jefferson's family history, trying to locate grave sites and gathering other historical information. I'll see what else I can come up with. I know he's not a professor but I can tell you he is among the most knowledgeable when it comes to Jefferson family history, which is why Foster chose him as his assistant. Btw, even though I didn't get a 'support' from you, I just want to say thanks for always being civil with me and for not not making some of the underhanded allegations that are presently being tossed around. See you back at the Jefferson page I hope. -- Gwillhickers 19:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have upgraded the url link for Barger, to Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society -- Gwillhickers 20:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The link at the TJHS is not really informative, but at least it's live. As far as I can tell, Barger has done a lot of genealogical research (in a non-academic setting), but is not a trained historian, and has not published research articles in the scholarly press.
We do have strong, possibly irreconcilable differences about sources, standards of evidence, and the process of science. But that is no reason to be uncivil to each other, or to harbor personal animosities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hi there. I don't know that your politics are within a light year of mine and it doesn't really matter, frankly, but I just wanted to let you know that it seems to me you are being treated unfairly at ANI and hope that you don't let the innuendo and bullshit get you down. Keep away from ANI, say little, and work hard, would be my advice. Best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for your kind words of encouragement. I come from a somewhat large family and between the lot of us our politics are all over the map. But when we come together at Thanksgiving, Christmas, weddings and funerals -- the word 'politics' doesn't even exist. Your words are heart felt. -- Gwillhickers 05:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


US stamps images[edit]

Do you have a favorite site for US stamp images without copyright? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The Smithsonian National Postal Museum is the best, imo. Just type in the subject of interest (e.g.Washington, Jefferson) in the search box and click on Search and you'll see a selection of stamps related. Click on the stamp for a larger view, and any history behind the stamp. -- Gwillhickers 22:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I once found wonderful yardsale book -- a brief History of the United States in Stamps featuring commemoratives ... and used the images for classroom use ... also for illustration, all the events or places pictured on the back of US money are on the state US history high school exam ... I used the Madison $5000 banknote reverse for the Constitutional Convention and it seemed to make an indelible impression, or instantly etched, or .... Madison was the 'Father of the Constitution'. kids got it for over fifteen years, even the videogame generation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

American Civil War section?[edit]

Is there any way of admitting the following information into the American Civil War article as a separate section or embedded in an existing one? There was postal service across battle lines ... including newspapers south to north...Confederates used stamps as money ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States some time ago. It covers topics like the first Confederate post offices, prisoner of war mail, etc, etc. Don't know if a separate section in the American Civil War page will fly well however. You might want to give the topic summary coverage in the Secession and war begins section, if anywhere. I wouldn't try to include anymore than one or two stamp images however. On the civil war page I have already linked to the confederate postage page in a couple of instances, along with a link in See also -- Gwillhickers 22:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. But the fact that both sides revered Washington and Andrew Jackson for disparately apposite reasons is remarkable, and the analysis ought to be in somebody's master's thesis in American intellectual history. Also, comparing and contrasting the course of events and rationales that would cause one president to be elevated onto a stamp during his life, and the other immediately after his death ... relative to ... hero worship ... sense of proportion ... Also, graphically the rates of postage changed across wider distances, so the frame might convey more information if the stamps were reordered by issue ... I guess I would reluctantly pick the Washingtons. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson was also revered by the Confederates and appears once on Confederate postage. -- Gwillhickers 17:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


re: West Point[edit]

It's wonderful that you are working on this key article. Since you brought it up, how about you add relevant K. info to that page, and I'd be happy to review it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the section deals more with the academy than the fortress, but I'm wondering if Kosciuszko had any part in the academy to speak of. I think in any case we can introduce the topic by mentioning the fortress and K', friend of Jefferson. Don't know off hand if there's much else along that line. Any insights you can offer would be nice also. -- Gwillhickers 00:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography of 18th-19th century Royal Naval history[edit]

Hello, I saw that you changed Bibliography of 18th- and 19th-century Royal Naval history back to Bibliography of 18th-19th century Royal Naval history with the edit summary, "aside from the mis use of hyphens, nothing wrong with original title". I agree that aside from that, it's fine, but why do you prefer the "mis use of hyphens"? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 22:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The hyphen in the title is used to denote the idea of 'through'. Uusing it again to connect it to century (i.e.18th-19th-century) was not consistent with its first usage. Perhaps it's not a misusage per se, but that was my reason. -- Gwillhickers 22:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I thought that Bibliography of 18th- and 19th-century Royal Naval history says the same thing and avoids grammar problems. Would it be OK with you if I change it back? SchreiberBike talk 01:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, you don't need my permission, but as the creator of the page I'd really prefer it if you didn't. As a title I don't think it will cause grammar problems, such as any may be. Besides, connecting 18th with the word and with a hyphen seems odd imo. Using 18th-19th seems simple enough. Btw, Happy New Year! -- Gwillhickers 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I won't change it then. Happy New Year to you too. SchreiberBike talk 03:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Die proof

Bronze plaque of Lincoln 15 cent stamp[edit]

Found your page which includes history about the 1866 issue of the 15 cent Lincoln stamp. My mother has a bronze plaque of that stamp which she received from a friend who had inherited it from his dad in Oklahoma. Do you know anything about bronze castings of stamps of this sort? 70.234.49.106 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of a bronze casting of a stamp, though I've seen similar undertakings of this sort which include 'paintings' of stamps. Such reproductions are almost always created by private sources, not governmental. Waiting for someone to make a statue of a stamp. Face-smile.svg -- Gwillhickers 01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I'll keep searching. If I find any statues I'll let you know. 70.234.49.106 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Bibliographies[edit]

Good work on the bibliographies -- esp Jefferson! Rjensen (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know people like yourself appreciate them. -- Gwillhickers 18:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • * Merwin, Henry Childs (1901). ''Thomas Jefferson]], Houghton, Mifflin, 164 pages; [http://books.google.com/books?id=CoZJAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22thomas+

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

This wiki kitten says thank you for your hard work on Thomas Jefferson. It's a pleasure to see such core article steadily improving!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! How's the Tadeusz Kościuszko artcle doing? Are we ready to resubmit it for FA? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

CW hist. on stamps -- update[edit]

I've asked for comment from the two other editors encouraging the 'American Civil War history on stamps', at the talk page for American Civil War, BusterD and Rjensen, and I wanted you to know I've a) expanded narrative especially from Strauss, b) got most but not all text with citations from Keegan and Webster, --- and the new state section remains without the Freehling citations to date.

The stub in my sandbox subpage American Civil War history on stamps, has been moved for me to “Articles for Creation” somehow, with one encouraging comment and one other editor collaborating (Gwillhickers). It has grown while awaiting review to five sources treating "Civil War on stamps", seven general references and 67 inline footnotes referring to the subjects of 99 stamps. I would appreciate any comments you may have. Still a work in progress. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Always glad to help. I noticed you're not making much use of the Smithsonian National Postal Museum as a source. It's among the best -- I'd recommend using it more. I also noticed you don't have much of a write up for the famous Lincoln memorial stamp yet, issued one year exactly after Lincoln's death. It's considered America's 1st commemorative stamp. Not only does it have a definitive Civil War theme i.e.Lincoln himself, it probably the most famous. Seems like it deserves a special location in the article, not lumped in with the rest, and a good write up, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. That gives me another source to mine for supportive narrative. Re: Lincoln. The write-up could be expanded alongside the Lincoln commemorative image by Jefferson Davis in the first section, and an additional piece leading into the rest... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Page launch[edit]

I have good news and bad news. Thank you for your encouragement, I've learned a lesson to be bolder. Same following discussion and two questions also at my talk.

My proposed article ‘American Civil War history on stamps’ has been made into a B class article ‘Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps’ without discussion.

The new title is unsatisfactory. The proper terminology is ‘American Civil War’ with an ‘n’. The new title does not show up on a Wiki title search. The ‘Main article: American Civil War’ tag has been removed; paragraphing is lost; categories are lost.

I would prefer the title ‘American Civil War on postage stamps’ or ‘American Civil War history on stamps’. Do I just start a new article title with the same text with links, and let a bot delete the orphan? Is there any reason for editors deleting the template, 'Main article: American Civil War'? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the name to Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps (Changing the name is referred to as a move.) I've also linked it up with three other articles. Click on What links here (listed under Tools on the sidebar to article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Upload challenge[edit]

My upload of Leif Erikson U.S. stamp prior to 1978 picturing a statue has been challenged as a panorama of Iceland, and so prohibited, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leif Erikson 1968 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. Any input would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I clicked on the link you provided and apparently the page doesn't exist (anymore?). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
So if the Leif Erikson stamp is still there and the link has disappeared, it seems I was persuasive? Sorry to bother. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The challenge is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Leif_Erikson_1968_U.S._stamp.1.jpg. —Diiscool (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

On the Togo challenge, WW2censor and I have come to directly opposite conclusion from the very same source he researched.

I propose, Keep: The 1963 stamp is 51 years old, so keep according to ccording to the Togo Law No. 91-12 of June 10, 1991 on the Protection of Copyright, Folklore and Related Rights Section IX, Article 36, available here, copyright of intellectual property extends for 50 years pma. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again I'm reminded why I haven't bothered with the philately project here lately and why most of the philatelic pages are rotting on the vine. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair usage template[edit]

It seems a substantial work has already been done. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately#Resources It explains stamp image usage for USPS stamps, also at Template:Stamp rationale. It seems these are for advanced applications, not the Upload Wizard? But they should be the appropriate language for a routine upload...National Postal Museum is specifically called out as a source.

The two key inputs would be Source: Arago: people, postage & the post, National Postal Museum, (or USPS.com store online), and Other Information: United States Postal Service®, © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved --- correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

All you need for the Source is U.S. Post Office, or USPS as the case may be, and the place you located the stamp image (e.g. Scanned stamp from private collection, Arago, etc). For Author, you can cite Gov. Printing Office, or the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and when available, the name of the stamp designer (e.g.Charles R. Chickering). Re: The templae, i don't bother with it, I simply go to the main page or any article page, and click on Upload file, located under Tools in the side bar at the left. As I pointed out before, when you get to Step 3, simply select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use and everything you need is right there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

New mainspace article[edit]

I placed the Territories of the United States on stamps onto mainspace. Since you last visited, I organized some more, added some narrative into Explorers, added bibliography and categories. It is said to be reviewed, but no Talk Page projects are yet listed. I am not sure how this develops, --- as at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, I had help. Do I put up project templates and await other to score quality and importance? Philately and United States wikiproject templates are up on the Talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


copyright discussion[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at WP:Media copyright questions#USPS template. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Am working on that as I speak. Check out the thread in a few minutes or so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that I am on the wrong side of the "digital divide" generation. My commentary exceeds any example provided, yet it is said it does not meet NFCC#8. That seems to be the most frequently referred to point. Yet at another article of multiple stamps, the commentary is "78¢ Alice Paul" for an individual stamp. This is Alice in Wonderland. How can it possibly be a mystery why there are fewer contributors to WP? Now the principle disrupter of my three articles says he knows someone, restoring the images is trivial, just 1-3 an article will meet the limit requirement... still learning.
Not sure how to set up the Diff for 3RR reports for next time. It looks like brackets around a https from the edit history pages? At 3RR exemptions it says, "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." -- which is exactly what the disrupter did not do, blanking twelve images on three article pages on a tear without discussion. Is that some kind of administrator malfeasance?
Of course I have a life to live, and in any case, I would rather be putting up images of stamps. Although there are three reverts within 24 hours for Puerto Rico on stamps and Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, I was so interested in putting up images of stamps at Territories of the United States on stamps one day, that I missed the disruption take downs there. Called away for real life, and I missed it, I just went back to making contributions which is my hobby here, added four more stamps, commentary and citations. and the easy revert window slipped away. I'd clearly rather concentrate on the enjoyment of the thing, rather than the wikifencing surrounding it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
From what I've seen all of their references to policy have been generic. Once reference was made to 'minimal usage', NFC-3a, in response to the overall usage of NFC files, but this only applies to the number a times a given NFC image can be used, which is once for a designated article. There is no actual policy that specifically says you can't use several NFC images in one article. Re: NFC-8, Contextual significance, increasing the reader's understanding. This idea can get real opinionated and usually ends up in an opinion battle, which is clearly what we have here typically, but I don't see how this is an issue in cases of stamp images being used in stamp articles. The idea of critical commentary was also bandied about, but as I've maintained, this is easily dealt with. Notice they never offer suggestions here, only maintaining that it's not good enough for the sole purpose of looking, stretching, to find a way to justify their behavior. The other examples are still posted with yet another generic reference to the foundation page followed up with a lot of conjecture piled on top, where again, no articulation of policy was ever outlined in terms of your particular activity. Re: 3RR. When the 4th revert is made, 3RR policy is breached. Had you restored your images a 3rd time and a 4th revert was made the individual in question could have been brought before the 3RR notice board, esp since he/she made no attempts to discuss the matter first back when this all started. Reporting 3RR violators is simple. You'd do well to read up on it, esp since you deal with a lot of images. As I've always maintained, no one's interests, here at WP, or with the USPS, has been compromised and no NFC policy has been violated. If there was it could easily be pointed out and there would be no need to pile the opinions so high. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. At some level someone at USPS legal has the answer to a phone call to reassure all parties. Since the USPS template warns away bad actors, I do not see a problem with using fair use licensed stamp images --- they cannot reasonably be feared as promoting commercial use violations of USPS rights in the marketplace. This seems like so much Pharisee hedging about the Torah to ensure no real violation is done to scriptural guidance. sigh. great fun as a high school kid in interfaith settings. lessons learned at the time about taking faith seriously in life decisions, --- not so much fun now when acting in good faith online.
As I saw in the earlier dispute on U.S. citizens in territories being a part of the U.S., the piling on of opinion just makes a wall of text that intimidates editors from joining in. That is why the Dispute resolution survey is such a good structural procedure for bringing about a consensus. But prior to this I had not thought through the issues. And in any case, that format is not being followed. The bottom line seems to be two editors object to topical philately articles at root, and this generic reference to policy without ever going to specifics, either of the article objected to, or of an exemplar, is one way to stifle them without seeming --- silly. It's about time to contribute more to articles to ensure my percentages of contributions to articles always exceeds contribution to talk pages. (personal hobby score-keeping). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


Blast from the past, and inquiring minds want to know...[edit]

I stumbled on Wikimedia Commons Stamps of the United States where it shows you made contributions some years ago. I've made subcategories by decade and added several complete sets in denomination order for exposition and multiple-stamp issues of the 1800s and first half of the 1900s. Hope you approve.

In accordance with the guidance of another editor, I have only used one category for each stamp...I think he was objecting to posting both in a category and in its subcategory, although that does not seem to be a convention generally followed... even more than Wikipedia, it seems like the wild west at Commons... I notice you use more than one category for your uploads. How do you choose which categories to list for a stamp image?

How do you invent a category, 'Jamestown Exposition Issue' at Wikimedia Commons? Could it also be a subcategory under History of the United States on Stamps? or under Stamps of the United States? If so, how does one routinely initiate a subcategory so that the search feature lists the ten stamps I uploaded in the National Parks 1934 issue? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

  • If you want to create a category, go to an image's description page, click on the '+' sign at the bottom in the category section, type the name of the category you want to create and save it. It will save out as a red link. Click on this red link and it will take you to the category's edit page, which will be empty, because you're about to create it by adding the name of the stamp(s) you want to include. Once saved, the category will appear blue .. and a new category is born.
  • To create a sub category, click on the category where you would like to include a sub category. Open its edit page and type [[Category:Name of new sub category]], at the bottom of the page and save. (There may be other sub categories there already.) It will also appear as a red link -- clicking on it will open its edit page, which will be empty as you have yet to include the names of any image(s). Add the name of the file(s) you'd like to add, and save. Note: As you add images, they will automatically be sorted alphabetically.
    Myself, I wouldn't create a category unless there's about a dozen appropriate images that can be included. IMO, Wikipedia and Commons has far too many categories already, many of them frivolous and unneeded, so create wisely.
    -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Territories on stamps[edit]

At Territories of the United States on stamps, I have reached a logical pause-point at 98 stamps featured. It has now had 8 days with over 30 views per day.

The article omits statehood-from-territories stamps for states such as Utah with commemoratives after the advent of the USPS. Many of the original 13 states are represented in explorers, founders or settlement commemoratives, but not by name as states until the Constitution Ratification issues of the 1980s.

Thank you for your encouragement early on. It's been a fun month-long project, and I just thought of running through the Scott's index alphabetically and found Alabama and Arizona statehood omitted, so the engagement for article improvement is not over. An editor just came by and used a replacement coding for stamp display that uses fewer key strokes at each row, but the display is indistinguishable from the format you showed me, so in an article this long it makes a savings.

Using pipes at each line break, it reads, for two stamps
{| style="margin:0.2em auto" |- | [[File:Ordinance2 of 1787.jpg|thumb|210px|<center>Ordinance of 1787<br>1937 issue]] | [[File:Mississippi Territory 1948 Issue-3c.jpg|thumb|210px|<center>Mississippi Territory<br>1948 issue]] |}

which is presented as

Ordinance of 1787
1937 issue
Mississippi Territory
1948 issue

I'm particularly proud of the National boundaries section, which is organized in such a way that it can be used by school teachers in 5th and 11th grades teaching "growth of the nation" in U.S. history classes. Enjoy Territories of the United States on stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the airmail lead...I've added Alaska and Hawaii statehood airmails, so only the original 13 and Utah are not represented with images in statehood, and they are now all accounted for by links to Arago images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

USPS template redux[edit]

I checked an editor who did me the courtesy of notifying my Talk of deletion of the Puerto Rico Flag USPS template image...she said,

"I have skimmed Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 49#USPS template and don't really have anything to add to that discussion. The way the non-free content guidelines are being interpreted on this wiki is such that multiple non-free images are for the most part not allowed in the same article. Gallery-type presentations of non-free images are not permitted, even with accompanying sourced commentary." -- Diannaa (talk) 2:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

So it seems the take-away is a simple misconstruing the reasonable fair usage restriction against multiple use of the same image --- to mean an unreasonable, self-imposed restriction against multiple images used in the same article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been an issue before, multiple nfc images in the same article, though no one has pointed to specific policy that is clear on that. We know there's limited use for one image, that any nfc image can only be used in one article, and we've heard the arguments about critical commentary, and needed v. not need images. Then of course there's the assumed "harm" any nfc images causes the Foundation, though I have pointed out time and again that there is no free content equivalent for USPS nfc images, so any harm in that instance is assumed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I have placed History of Virginia on stamps into mainspace, I'd appreciate your taking a look. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The philatelist contribution[edit]

I've taken the opportunity to check at several of the commemorated biography articles, and added stamps to the legacy or stamps or memorials section at places such as Jacques Marquette or George Washington or Arlington Cemetery. The stamps seem to be accepted well enough to stay up for a few days --- so far so good, sometimes images are enlarged. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Constitution of May 3, 1791/archive4[edit]

Since it's a topic of some relevance to our Kosciuszko article, you may want to comment on the nomination. Please note that the last year's nomination failed primarily because not enough people voiced their opinion (whether for or against, it was decided that not enough people commented in the first place). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Happy Barnstar day!! Audiluver (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually probably to your dismay, I'm not a history buff. But that doesn't mean I don't like history, it is one of my favorite subjects. The reason I was editing the Thomas Jefferson page is because I'm doing a board on it. But thanks for the welcome. You are not the only one who said that. I actually became a member on July 13, 2012. Audiluver (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Thank for the tips! Audiluver (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC) The reason I gave you the barnstar is because you said "I've spent the last couple of years trying to get it back up to speed -- it was once a GA." And you sounded tired out so I gave you the Tireless contributor barnstar. Audiluver (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Audiluver I had a feeling the barnstar may have been for work on the Jefferson article but wasn't quite sure when you said 'Happy Barnstar day'. Anyways, Thanks!! It is much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

External links to notes[edit]

At History of Virginia on stamps I have accounted narrative for all the Presidential stamps. Searching on 'George Washington' at Arago did not bring up all of the stamps, however 'Washington [year]' produced the issues.

I am trying out a first-round convention for links to Arago images, using the insight Masem provided, there is no limit to footnote external links.

Five Virginian presidents, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and William Henry Harrison are depicted on the 22-cent commemoratives of the nine “Ameripex ’86 Issue” presidents honored on May 22, 1986 at the international philatelic show in Rosemont, Illinois. An image of the souvenir miniature stamp sheet can be seen at the link in the footnote.[74]

Your feedback is welcome. There is a section for discussion at Talk:History of Virginia on stamps#Links in the body of the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was wondering how to do that. Audiluver (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?[edit]

At WP:Media copyright questions#RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?, Werieth has replied that the RfC is at the wrong venue, and simply repeating earlier specious characterizations without reading the text at History of Virginia on stamps with Arago and Wallenstein commentary concerning the Ratification Convention -- not only a description of the colonial Capitol building pictured.

Any assistance is welcome. It is better to be relocated? See discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Including USPS nfc stamp images[edit]

You may be interested in the articulate discussion between two administrators, Jheald (pro) and Masem (con) on the subject of including USPS stamp images in topical philately articles at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 63#RfC: Is stamp non-free content use explained by WP:NFCI Guideline #3?. Survey. Support. Coat of Many Colours. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As the discussion seems to be winding up, Masem cautions nfc use in an article is not a "numbers game"... Limited use WP:NFCC #3 in an article might mean limited to one for each major article divisions, zero, one or two, I argue no more than five.
But at History of painting, we have several pictured for each topic division, a total of maybe 25, there is no “contextual significance” explicated for each image, they are aggregately exemplars of each school, rather than one per school. Likewise at Puerto Rico on stamps, there are four stamps to be pictured in the topic division, “modern personalities”, a baseball player, politician, poet and actor. These now should have either historical analysis or literary commentary such as found at Julia de Burgos and Roberto Clemente to meet “contextual significance” by historical analysis and reliable sources, then the article images submitted to WP:NFCR — so as to avoid edit wars without discussion on the article Talk page?
I’d like to get better at this so it is not a week out my adult life to explain each stamp, stamp by stamp. I will beef up the narratives before making an NFCR run, using the RfC format again? -- although the format a) issue; b) survey; c) threaded discussion, seems honored in the breach. Each reply under a survey vote could be relocated with a bullet or its own sub-sub category down in the threaded narrative section, it seems to me. So any viewer coming upon the RfC could see at a glance, the support/oppose/comment split. Werieth seemed to take personal offense when I tried that initially. I am reluctant to go to NFCR and see just two editors arbitrate each instance on their own alone again.
More broadly, let me say that there is no encyclopedic import to simply asserting historical significance as Masem fears. Further, merely relating an explicit event which may be commemorated on a stamp, a) the surrender at Yorktown, — is not sufficient for contextual significance as Jheald fears, but adding b) the battle brought about the end of the Revolution, a military truce followed by the Treaty of Paris (1783) recognizing independence, --- meets the requirement for “contextual significance” WP:NFCC #8 in my opinion, reinforced by Donner60 outside the RfC, Rjensen, Diego, Coat of Many Colours, King of Hearts... and yourself. And there is an additional requirement that there be a reliable scholarly source beyond the issuing agency or a newspaper write-up to meet “contextual significance" in historical analysis. The NFC illustration must support qualifying encyclopedic text.
This provision eliminates the merely celebratory Bart Simpson stamp notable only in the huge production that nobody wanted to use as their postage, so there are millions on pallets in storage and the public corporation losses went to six figures. — Although one might imagine crafting a literary critique which would include it.
Just ruminating here, the only call for action at this point seems to be for my own part, to write more complete narratives related to more USPS stamps before asserting the need using their nfc content for illustration. Knock on wood, the consensus for my one little old stamp on Virginia Ratification Convention seems to have carried, unless something drastic changes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The double standard you note between NFC usage in other articles and your own is exemplary of the sort of myopic and obsessive nature of some of the editors who carry on as if they represent the Foundation foremost. All I can tell you is that if an editor hounds you on such opinionated grounds again but turns his cheek to all the other examples you've noted, simply revert any deletion made, and if and when the 3RR rule is breached, drag the culprit over to the 3RR notice board and see how many 'lives' he gets to use there. The idea that NFC usage when there is no free equivalent "harms" the Foundation is total and opinionated BS. Mind you, not once did anyone cite policy about such "harm" or how it prevents Wikipedia overall from its mission to provide a free encyclopedia. If it comes to push and shove, simply round up all the editors who have had NFC images deleted on such opinionated grounds and get their consensus. At this late date there must be many dozens of them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, but would it not be considered "canvassing", unless it were to form a Project Page: WP:NFC users group.... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
TVH, There are legitimate forms of canvassing, esp when it involves editors who have been involved in any given debate or similar issue. Don't let anyone tell you different. Usually the ones who generically refer to and object to canvassing are the ones who will not fare well from the process of establishing a broader and more conclusive consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion under "concrete proposal" is sliding sideways, with Masem suggesting multiple alternative courses, then reconsidering, Jheald very cautious about admitting historical analysis relative to an anniversary of an event or birthday of a person. The stamp itself is issued on a date related to a person or event which is notable...so I thought discussing their notability was directly related to the commemorative stamp. And still the impulse to make the encyclopedia a literary magazine, even though policy only suggests discussion of literary commentary or controversy at WP:NFLIST#2, without exclusively limiting "contextual significance" to those two kinds of analysis.
I am now somehow now guilty of wanting to alter the NFCC, when all I attempted to do on my own was to align NFCC provisions related to NFCI #3 stamps in the Guideline statement.-- the subject of the RfC, after all. Consequently I have tried to shut down two policy proposals which Masem seemed to have suggested, and asked him to provide a draft of his own for one of his "pages" related to --- stamps, as a start...just out of collegial interest.
In the meantime, I have found several more USPS stamps to list at History of Virginia on stamps, so if there were five of 16 modern stamps to be successfully uploaded, they would be a smaller percent of the article scope of modern stamps...although Masem assures me there is no numbers game here in determining "limited use". But if it is not at least a range at 5-10% of the images in an article, or 20-30% of the modern images discussed, how is it to be measured? Donner60 though sympathetic, concludes it is just by "gut".
Well, maybe if I can carry myself in a credible way, and write cogent defenses of my articles as I submit them to WP:NFCR, my NFC usage will be acceptable to everyone's gut, I will not be seen as one of those attempting to publish all the stamps of the world on Wikipedia, as one editor had it in discussion at one frustrated point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll look in on matters and chime in if I think I can help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

Hi - In this edit to Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added some text with a citation <ref">[[Wood|Wood, 2010]], p. 509</ref>

Unfortunately there is no book by Wood in the article bibliography, whilst linking it in that way leads to Wikipedia's article on Wood. An editor is trying to get the section deleted on the basis that the reference is a false link. Could you please add details of the book by Wood, that you were citing, to the bibliography on that page? - Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem has been fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - Arjayay (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2[edit]

I'm afraid I've given you a bunch of homework, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

USS Monitor[edit]

I'm sorry, but naval history isn't really something I'm familiar with- there are a lot of norms/conventions in the articles I inevitably won't know about. Best of luck with the article. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Polish sources[edit]

I can try to help with Polish sources. Вялікае княства літоўскае: гісторыя вывучэння is not Polish; if it is in Cyrillic it is Belo/Russian and it's as gibberish to me as it is to you. You can try to ask at WT:RUSSIA or WP:BELARUS for help, through I wouldn't hold my breath; if nobody cares to help the content may be removed; half the time you see those type of unformatted refs in those articles it is an artifact of some nationalistic POV pushing about nationality/naming anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

Just created: U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13 -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

re: Kosciuszko's artillery manual[edit]

I won't have access to my Polish copy till mid-June. Wouldn't you have access to it in a nearby library? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: probably not, but I'll check. In any case, I've decided to wait until after the nomination has been closed before adding any new content, just in case some issue comes crawling out of the woodwork. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, at least it reduces the chance of this being failed as unstable. Sigh. See why I dislike FACs now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


DYK for U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Loved this philatelic article - U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13! Extremely well written.

AshLin (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@AshLin:, Thanks!! This has been a most interesting day. The Parcel Post stamp article, while I am writing, is featured on the main page in DYK; I just had another article I've been working on for weeks just pass an FA review; I just received this Barnstar -- and to top it all off, I just cut my finger about 15 minutes ago while preparing some chicken for the oven. Go figure. Face-smile.svg-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like you paid the iron price! #gameofthrones ;) AshLin (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


BoNM - Poland.png The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
Well, you actually done what I thought was impossible: despite my nay-saying, you succesfully pushed Tadeusz Kościuszko to a FA-level. Thefefore, it is my pleasure to award you The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland. Hurra! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Gwillhickers by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 04:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus:, Thanks!! This will be a 'memorial day' weekend I won't forget. Kosciuszko is still with us! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
What do you think are the odds we could to this with Casimir Pulaski too? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus:. That's an idea, but I'm hoping that someone will initiate the USS Monitor review. If that happens my 'review' efforts will be more or less committed there. Let's see what happens. In the mean time, if you want to start tweaking the Pulaski article in the FA direction I'll see what I can do in between the acts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Congrats on getting Tadeusz Kościuszko to featured article! MONGO 00:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


@MONGO:, Many thanks for the barnstar, and esp for your help and advice. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Monitor[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Monitor you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67:, Thanks for taking on this review. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to tackle this one. As you can see this is quite a large article, as the USS Monitor was a special ship, a naval icon if you will, marked a major change in naval warfare, involved many important people and played an important role in the American Civil War. Then of course there was the rediscovery and recovery of the sunken vessel, which is quite a story unto itself. Covering all of this took the constant efforts of at least two editors and was indeed a chore. I imagine reviewing this article will be equally so. Again, thanks for taking on this one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No worries, it will take a while, I expect. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations[edit]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Tadeusz Kościuszko to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon (either on a particular date or on any available date), please nominate it at the requests page. If you'd like to see an FA appear on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with about 1,307 articles waiting their turn at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 18:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bencherlite, Piotrus: -- Bencherlite, thanks for the notification. I thought articles that were promoted to FA were automatically featured on the front page sooner or later. In any case, I filled out the request, and listed it under Nonspecific date nominations, but I have a feeling I'm not doing something right as it looks a little odd. Am I also supposed to add the first portion of the lede? I added the first paragraph from the lede and removed the footnote, as it was leaving red warning tags on the page. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
It's "automatic" in a very pot-luck sense - some articles get picked within a few weeks of promotion, but others are still waiting to appear from 2006/2007 (and a few have waited even longer than that!) I'll tweak the template and draft a blurb for you - thanks for having a go! BencherliteTalk 19:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Barnacles and other sea fowl[edit]

The article USS Monitor reads "her bottom was scraped clean of barnacles and other sea fowl", thanks to your addition of July 2013. Obviously, barnacles are not sea-fowl; is that really what the source says? — Sebastian 05:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Monitor[edit]

The article USS Monitor you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:USS Monitor for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Tadeusz Kościuszko know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 17, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Tadeusz Kościuszko

Tadeusz Kościuszko (1746–1817) was a military leader who became a national hero in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and the United States. He graduated from the Corps of Cadets in Warsaw, Poland, before studying in France. In 1776, he moved to North America, where he took part in the American Revolutionary War as a colonel in the Continental Army. An accomplished military architect, he designed and oversaw the construction of state-of-the-art fortifications, including those at West Point, New York. He returned to Poland, and was commissioned a major general in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Army in 1789. Two years after the Polish–Russian War of 1792 had resulted in the Second Partition of Poland, he led an uprising against Russia in March 1794. Russian forces captured him at the Battle of Maciejowice, and the defeat of the uprising led to the Third Partition in 1795, which ended Poland's independent existence for 123 years. He was pardoned by Tsar Paul I in 1796 and emigrated to the United States. A close friend of Thomas Jefferson, Kościuszko wrote a will in 1798 dedicating his American assets to the education and freedom of U.S. slaves. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK:1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps[edit]

Hi GWhillikers, Thanks for your message and helpful suggestions on how I should simplify my DYK reviews in the future. I learned more than I already knew about these stamps. I did not know that the Post Office had issued any stamps mainly to promote a privately owned, profit-making enterprise? Do you know whether there were other such issues? If this were the only time (or even the first time), I think such a statement would enhance the notability of the issue. In my opinion, the article is a good one that should be rated higher than Start class for quality. Bruin2 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I don't know if any other U.S. stamps were ever issued to promote a private enterprise, and I've read nothing to that effect either way. I certainly will keep an out out for that bit of information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi again,
First, I apologize for misspelling your screen name. I should have rechecked that against your post.
Further, regarding the historical political environment in which these stamps were issued, the United States government was deeply affected by the isolationist mood of the populace in the early 1930s. That feeling didn't abate until after Germany initiated WWII. Maybe there was Congressional debate about issuing these stamps, since they benefitted a foreign company (even though we weren't at war with Germany then). I'd offer to help look this up, but I'm rather absorbed in other things now, so it could be quite a while before I can look into the question. Bruin2 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm still looking for other sources and hopefully something will break that sheds some light on these advents. I would love to be able to say (if true of course) that the Zeppelins were the only U.S. Postage stamps used to support a private enterprise, but without a reliable source as you must know we can't say anything, one way or the other, to this effect. I'll keep a look out for this info. That would be a key piece of information for the article indeed if we could only provide a source for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dvoinoye Gold Mine[edit]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

above average history buff
Thank you for helping to culminate "pages of knowledge", for quality articles such as Tadeusz Kościuszko who fought in the revolutionary wars of Poland and America, for collecting sources such as the Bibliography of early American naval history, and telling history on stamps in U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

re: "Tadeusz Kościuszko Day" - indeed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


DYK for 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps Well done! 5X DYKs are always problematical. 7&6=thirteen () 18:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mea culpa[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers, I want to acknowledge that my prediction here was pretty shoddy. I still have some hope that we can get where we need to, but it does seem like it's going to be a more contentious process than I had expected. In case you weren't aware, the German Wikipedia seems to be gearing up to deliberate this feature change as well. It's a shame that so many volunteer resources need to go toward stuff like this, but since this feature has clearly struck a nerve, I guess that's to be expected. Anyway -- though I know we've butted heads a bit, I do appreciate your efforts on this, and again, sorry I made a bad call on the outcome. -Pete (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Thanks for your comments, they mean more than I can say with words -- and we all make some not so accurte calls from time to time. Funny lot those humans, aye? Face-smile.svg. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Participate in discussion about Media Viewer follow-up study[edit]

I'm contacting you because of your involvement in the Media Viewer RfC. I understand that this is a bit awkward since the RfC has closed with consensus, but I have been tasked with helping the Multimedia team run a study to gather more feedback about Media Viewer preferences. I think the the write-up for the study could use your feedback. Would you take some time to review the study and share your thoughts on the talk page? Please feel free to invite others to participate as well. Thank you! --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Media Viewer RfC draft principles & findings[edit]

Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the Media Viewer RfC case have now been posted. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - extension of closure dates[edit]

Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of evidence has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for workshop proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for recent developments to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the evidence guidance. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case[edit]

You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette[edit]

Could use a stamp, I think ... I'd recommend the 1957 issue, as the other two have very similar poses. Add it anywhere as I'll probably move it anyway! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Yes check.svg Done -- I went ahead and added all three images as each stamp commemorates a different theme and point in time in Lafayette's history. A similar section was well received in the George Washington article just before it became a GA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, given the sheer quantity of Lafayette prints, paintings, and sculptures available, they may not all survive. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Your support over at Featured Pictures is a pleasant surprise and much appreciated. I don't know if you have any interest in Customs Stamps, but I came across this one during one of my trips to the NNC. It does have a ship on it... Feel free to tweak the category I put it in, as this is way out of my area of expertise.--Godot13 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13: -- Your images are the pleasant surprise to me. As a stamp collector I have a great appreciation for engravings, and the (lost?) art of engraving. Btw, when I cropped the Jefferson image and over wrote your original image file I wasn't aware it was part of a set. Sorry about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I read through your user page article on history through stamps (very thorough) and saw a great many parallels between our interests, not to mention many of the same designs but in miniature.-- Godot13 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Godot13: -- Here are a few images of various tax stamps and such you might find interesting. They are not 'ultra-high' res, but still have good resolution and are great images, imo.
File:Beer revenue stamp proof single 1871.JPG
File:Lincoln Beer Stamp 1871.JPG
File:United States 1919 $5.00 War Savings Issue-.jpg
File:Washington $5,000 Documentary trial color essay.JPG
File:Newspaper Periodical stamp $60 1894 issue.JPG
Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Please forgive me for the erroneous speedy nomination. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia a better place. All the best :) Aerospeed (Talk) 02:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

The barnstar is much appreciated. I'm working on an assortment of U.S. revenue stamp proofs from the BEP. When I get them uploaded I'll ping you.--Godot13 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen Simpson (writer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • society the Delphian Club. <ref name=Simpson8935>[[#Simpson|Simpson, 1859]], p. 895</ref><ref>[[#White|The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography '''. . .''', p. 543</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen Simpson (writer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • Surgeon-General (1818-1821), and later the forth auditor of the U.S. Treasury (1824-1829).<ref>[[#Appleton6|Appleton's Cyclopedia of American biography, v6, p. 396</ref>}} founded the ''[[The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stephen Simpson (writer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:
  • readiest reckoner ever invented, for assisting Tradesmen, Merchants, Gentlemen, <big>&</big>c (1855};&nbsp;&nbsp;[http://books.google.com/books?id=32ADAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers- I have a list currently at FLC. If you have a spare moment, and if the topic seems remotely interesting to you, any comments or review you might care to leave would be appreciated. If not, no worries at all.--Godot13 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13: -- Looks nice. I noticed there is a COA (listing, no image) for Washington in the list. Is there a COA for Thomas Jefferson? If so, would it work well in this list? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the CoA depicting Washington was the coa for the state of Washington, the list is only for state and territorial coas. If I come across anything regarding Jefferson, you know I'll let you know...--Godot13 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
@Godot13: Scheech! -- Sorry about my dumb question. But yes, if you find one for Jefferson, bring it forward. You may even want to find a place for it in the Jefferson article. Suggestion: You might want to start incorporating these COA's in their respective state articles. Aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL! Each coa image in the list article is placed in their respective state/territory seal or coat of arms article (all except Ohio which got booted out and I wasn't up for an edit war). They are all currently nominated as a set at Featured pictures... Prepping the Presidents for October.--Godot13 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Misunderstanding[edit]

Yes, of course people should check properly before they tag articles, but I felt your approach to User:Aerospeed was unnecessarily confrontational. I apologise if I offended you by intervening. Deb (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Deb: -- On retrospect I was perhaps too confrontational. Aerospeed and I are on good terms now, he has even given me a barnstar, not that it was needed, and at least I've made a wiki-friend, or two. Hope that goes for all involved. Face-smile.svg Again, thanks for moving the article to a more conventional name. 'Good move'. See you around !! -- Gwillhickers (talk)
-) Deb (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

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! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Open offer....[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers! Just a short note that my offer of sending you a paperback copy of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy is still open. I think it would surprise you, and in a positive way. Send me an email (wikimail works, or go via my home page linked on my user page) if you want to discuss this privately. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

William H. Seward[edit]

What do we have out of copyright that could be added to his article? I recall the 1909 Alaska-Yukon issue. Whatever you can think of, just add them in and I'll play with them. He may have appeared in "back of the book" stuff (edit: He's on O71 link and possibly Godot13 has ideas from the numismatic side.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I might be able to find a BEP engraved portrait for a very high res scan. I hope to be at the Smithsonian mid to end of October, I could ask if they have anything... There's also this which I could rescan higher res and just prepare the front (or crop the portrait)--Godot13 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a most helpful note but I think if you can find a BEP engraving, grab it. As far as I can tell, the portrait of Seward on the $50 bill and the one on the Alaska-Yukon stamp look very similar and such an engraving sould be a common source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Wehwalt- Just seeing this now. Put a proof stamp image on your page, will work up the face of the $50 and see about trying to come up with the portrait (Secretaries of State are much harder than Treasury or Presidents)--Godot13 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal note[edit]

I want to assure you that I am not abandoning the copy edit project at Thomas Jefferson, I'm just taking a little wiki-break. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Portrait size[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers- I recently went over all the engraved president portraits to give them another cleaning. Recalling your comment/suggestion here, the file sizes have all been reduced roughly 30% --Godot13 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13: -- Good decision. Another consideration is that sometimes a reader is impatient, and when a selected image starts to slowly crawl onto the page, very often the reader will just click on the 'back' arrow of the browser and move on, and the image will never be viewed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Your comments made sense, particularly the slow connections or mobile users (and the comment above). -- Godot13 (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Presidents of the United States (1789–1909)[edit]

FYI - Presidents of the United States (1789–1909), a set of 25 high resolution restored BEP engraved images, has been nominated at Featured Pictures. Should you have any interest in viewing or commenting, the nomination will be open until 12 October. Thanks -- Godot13 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERM Request[edit]

Wikipedia File mover.svg

I have granted file mover rights to your account following either a request for those rights or a clear need for the ability to move files. For information on the file mover rights and under what circumstances it is okay to move files, see Wikipedia:File mover. When you move a file please ensure that you change the links to the file to the new name. If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. — xaosflux Talk 11:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC[edit]

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Samuel Gray Ward[edit]

Gwillhickers, I just wanted to thank you for your informed comments regarding Samuel Gray Ward at the DYK nomination. Clearly, you know what you're talking about so thank you! --Rob at Houghton (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image nom[edit]

I saw the current nom and the scope is way too broad and needs to be narrowed (having done a lot of VI stuff in the past). If you (we) are planning to upload significant numbers/varieties of tax stamps we may need to create additional categories to keep things organized. As long as you use a qualifier in the nomination scope (i.e., Revenue stamp, Beer series 1871, Hamilton) this would allow for multiple VI within a single category. Within the "Beer" category, can you tell me what are the series dates? I can create a frame from there which will make VI noms easier going forward...--Godot13 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Revenue stamps of the United States may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • Washington remained the only figure on the dozens of varieties issued up until 1874.<ref>{{#Scotts| Scotts U.S. Stamp Catalogue, 1982]], pp. 453-460</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Revenue stamps of the United States[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Revenue Stamp article[edit]

Coming along nicely... Any room for this?--Godot13 (talk) 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13: -- Thanks. I beginning to find out I may have bitten off more than I can chew in terms of providing illustrations for the many 100s of different 'types', let alone individual stamps. In the First issue design types section, under Bank check, I've already linked to an image of this check. However, if you would like to add your image to other versions in the summary for this image that would be nice also. I've linked to other examples of revenue stamps on documents, stocks, etc, in the article also. Fascinating stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Godot13: After thoughts. Just so you know, I realize the image of the check you've offered here is far superior in image quality, but the check I've linked to serves as a better philatelic and historical reference, at least imo, as it's franked with three stamps issued from the first three separate series of revenue stamps, issued in 1862, 1871 and 1872 respectively. Such a combination of rev stamps on any document is scarce, if not rare, and on that note makes for a unique image. -- Re: Featured pictures. Looks like I'm off to a rough start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries! It's a better example for the signer versus the stamp... Having one's own photos in FP can be tough in the beginning...--Godot13 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)