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)


American History on US Postage Stamps[edit]

Hi, I've actually been pondering this page since you created it, thinking about how it should fit into the system of WP articles. It's a little difficult, for several reasons. First, we haven't yet had much success with articles on topical philately; what are the unique facts that would go into such an article, and what sources would one use? Second, US history on US stamps is broad, encompassing hundreds of issues, but not focussed or especially thematic - every country puts lots of its history on its stamps. If you pick and choose, then you risk turning it into an personal essay or magazine article, which are not suitable for a reference work.

So the thing to figure out is what factual material is going to be at the core of the article, using existing articles as an analogy. (Pictures are nice, but they are never more than adjuncts to article prose... and yes, the wikimedia universe should have a place for extensive galleries, but nobody can agree where.) A good starting approach is to reread some featured articles and think about how you would do what they do. Also, coming back to the reference work idea, think about what facts the readers are looking for; everybody over the age of 10 knows that a country puts its history on its stamps, so what is it that you are adding?

In the topical case, our special problem is that the unique facts are not the historical events, which are well covered in their own articles, nor the developments of routes and rates, but the choice of subject and design process. Fortunately, for many US stamps there is much detail available. To take an example from Gary Griffith's book on the 1922-26 stamps, the Lexington-Concord issue gets 10 pages starting with the act of Congress directing their issuance, through the debate over the subjects to depict, and then describing how the source images were adapted into stamp designs. The 10 pages could actually be summarized into a nice one-page article Lexington-Concord Issue, and I think the overall topical article would just mention this as a part of the 150-year-anniversary group of the 1920s.

It might make sense to first try your hand at writing up details of several notable stamp issues, for instance Columbian Issue could be expanded with more detail. Then you can abstract from the detailed articles into an overview. I'm also thinking that grouping by meta-themes makes sense - anniversary-motivated issues, politically-motivated subjects, historical subjects altered for the stamp issue, subjects/designs that are now outdated by modern scholarship, etc. And again, think about the facts you're presenting that are going to be here and nowhere else in WP. Stan (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Stan, I have moved this thread to the draft page's discussion page.

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)

Isabella I of Castile[edit]

Hello, you messaged me concerning citations for the Isabella I of Castile page but I really have no idea what you're talking about. If I edited it, I do not know when since it has well over 3000 edits. I tried looking but couldn't find my name anywhere on the edit history. And the page is quite adequately cited compared to the majority of other pages, so again I do not know what you mean. Mind clarifying?
Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isabella I[edit]

hello, I have edited Isabella I of Castile but I havent done any major edits apart from add the section about her children which pretty much speaks for itself. thank you--David (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Issue[edit]

Please stop using the uncommon word "issue" instead of stamp or postage stamp which provides a proper and easily understandable meaning. The word issue, often used to refer to offspring or a problem, does not convey the meaning intended to regular readers when reading philatelic articles: in fact I sometimes have to think what you mean. Simplicity is better. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Before the term issue is ever used by itself the term stamp issue or postage stamp is used before it, however in all probability there may be exceptions and if and where they occur I will render the term accordingly. GWillHickers (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Around here we use the common name. If you can show, supported by reliable sources that this is the current common name, I am sure we will be happy to use it in future articles. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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) ...

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Hello, Gwillhickers! I recently made this change to the article, but was reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson with slavery[edit]

You made an edit [2] claiming "Prior sentence was a blatant contradiction. ' '..did not oppose slavery as a politician, although as President he did sign the law that banned the slave trade..' '??" WP:BOP "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The sources cited indicate that there is no "contradiction", blatant or otherwise. Many pro-slavery people supported a ban on the slave trade in 1807 to protect slavery. Please review WP:V policy where it says that "the source [must] directly support the material in question."

BTW, please pay attention to the talk page because you'll see this particular sentence is currently being debated.[3] You can add your input, but please refrain from making unjustified edits without consensus, particularly those that lack historical accuracy or directly contradict the sources cited. This is why I reverted your edit [4]Ebanony (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

All that said, the sentence as it stood was a contradiction. It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it. In your effort to maintain historical accuracy please try not to overlook the glaringly obvious. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
"It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it." By signing a law to outlaw the slave trade? First off it said as a politician he did not oppose it, as with legislation or otherwise. Your reading of the text is flawed. If you can't make the simple distinction between the institution of slavery and the slave trade, then I suggest you study the matter. Jefferson in no way made any law against slavery as President - historical fact. Your claim is not supported by the sources, and that violates V policy. If you want to make a change to that section, please discuss it first here: [5] Ebanony (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Have moved this thread to the Thomas Jefferson discussion page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
So Gwill, how can I help you? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
You can help (the article) by voicing your consensus about the Controversy section size, which is beginning to grow again. Parkwells, one of the main editors to the section, has acknowledged the situation and I believe he will be making efforts to correct this ongoing problem. Again, consensus needs to be heard again, and the page needs constant attention until this matter is resolved. The latest call for consensus is at the bottom of the Jefferson talk page. Thanks for all of your other help, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Archiving at talk:Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers! I saw that you are manually archiving some parts of the talk page. However, the page is archived by User:MiszaBot IMiszaBot. If it gets to long, I suggest simply reducing the 90 day age for archiving. Mixing manual and automatically generated archives is not impossible, but tricky - it's probably best to attach the manually archived material to the youngest existing archive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we have to do something. The discussion page was a mile long, making it more difficult to follow more than one discussion when editing. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Schultz[edit]

I'm not Schultz (although I may sadly approach his waistline), and I'd really prefer it if you don't make really really mistaken statements about the sources I provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What "mistaken statement" was that, for some reason you forgot to mention that, also. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The claim that the birth dates of Hemings children are not at this link. Also see my extended comment added here to the main discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Jefferson stamp[edit]

Your particular example is perforated, and perforation didn't start until 1857. So yeah, the design is from 1856, but the depicted stamp is later. Stan (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, and thanks also for adding the note in the file summary. I'll have the correct image uploaded asap. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We do have File:Stamp US 1856 5c.jpg, which is an 1856 imperforate, albeit not a mint copy (out of my price range, ha ha). BTW, you might be interested in my new website http://stampdata.com - it's a wiki, but as an independent site it can aim for more in-depth coverage and doesn't have the restrictive image rules of WP. Even in its early state, searches across the whole database yield interesting results! Stan (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Issue of 1856
Here is the correct type for the 'first' Jefferson stamp. The Smithsonian's account leads one to think the perforated example was the 1st. btw.. Nice web site! I'll include it in external links on a few stamp articles, like Stamp collecting -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

Copyright problem: Stephen Decatur[edit]

Hello, an editor brought up copyright concerns with this article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 July 27. I noticed you have been heavily editing the article and some of those edits added text that is very similar to a source here. One edit in particular adds a very similar, closely-paraphrased paragraph. The article: "Enterprise and the frigate USS Constitution captured the Tripolitan ketch Mastico on December 23, 1803, after a close confrontation...", the source "On December 23, 1803, Enterprise and the frigate USS Constitution captured the Tripolitan ketch Mastico after a sharp fight..." I have tagged the article with {{copyvio}} and re-listed its report at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 5. Please follow the instructions and if you have any questions, let me know.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you need the text, you can view an old revision and paste it into the temp. From there you can work on it. I didn't want to remove a lot of text because I noticed you put so much work into the article. Restoring to before your edits would likely remove a lot of good contributions to the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. The page was roughly 1/3 the size it is now before I began work on it in May. I don't see the page as needing an "overhaul" as one editor has suggested. I think it would be easier if the concerned parties were more specific as to what needs rewording. It seems that because of the wording of one passage it is assumed that the entire article needs to be rewritten. I have put several months of research and effort into the page and presently simply do not have the time to rewrite/re-research the entire article all over again. I feel the quickest and easiest way to remedy any problems is for the concerned parties to simply point them out and I will be more than happy to correct them. Again the one problem that was pointed out could have been remedied with a quick rewording and I am puzzled as to why that did not occur by any of the concerned parties here. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I did a comparison and you can see there is still a lot of similarity in the text. I can take of this but will more then likely remove a lot of text; keeping it brief. When using a single source to transcribe a story, close-paraphrasing is hard to avoid. In this case as well, there are exact sentences as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


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)

Tagging[edit]

While you're tagging a lot of articles, do small stubs, based on the American Dictionary of Fighting Ships warrant it? Wee Curry Monster talk 09:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they do, esp when most are cut and pasted from that source!! I didn't start out with the idea of tagging a lot of articles -- I was going through a list of sloops' looking for a good ship image to use in an article, and to my surprise I found out that most of these articles were lifted -- many in their entirety! I'm in the process of making a list and bringing it to the attention of the history project right now. Don't like to be the boogie-man. Hopefully folks will spend more time reading and writing articles rather than just hopping around from one article to another and tweaking and pecking at them, as seems to be the practice with too many editors around here these days. Seems for every one writer there are 20 'tweakers' and 'peckers'. With all the tweaking, you'd think some of these pages would get fixed. Most are not stubs anyways. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
Ahoy matey! You do realise that is PD and you can lift the text directly? ie its not a copyright infringement - moreover there is a template to highlight this?
I don't do that myself, I consider it lazy the only one article to me is USS Trumbull (1799), which was one of the first articles I wrote. Whilst its not brilliant piece of prose, it is cited and has references. Do you think perhaps you're being a tadge overzealous? If you're of a mind to expand it further and have the sources to do so be my guest but it was a topic I found difficult to find much more information than is in there now. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's PD but we're still not supposed to cut and paste, are we? And we're still supposed to write articles using inline citations. Google has tons of books they have scanned. Again, don't want to play the wiki-cop, but most of the ship's articles need attention. -- Btw, while we're chatting semi-live here, I'm hailing from California, where are you? :-) Gwillhickers (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well technically you can with PD material provided its attributed, which is where the template {{DANFS}} comes into play and its something that multiple mirrors of wikipedia do. (Though personally I consider it lazy.) Don't get me wrong I agree with you that a whole series of articles have been compiled the lazy way. Its just that one of mine you tagged twice wasn't, USS Trumbull (1799), it is a stub that does have an inline cite and reference. Having done a fair bit of research trying to find more info, there isn't a lot of material and its only notable to me because David Jewett was her first and only commander and he is of interest to me. Others on my watchlist I didn't remove the tag as I happen to agree with you. I'm from Glasgow in Scotland. If you have more info on her, I'd be interested to know as I tried and failed to find it.
If you're still not convinced btw User:Moonriddengirl is very knowledgable on copyright matters and I've always found her very helpful. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I just went through some 85 articles. If I wrongly tagged yours or any others please accept my apologies and remove the tag. Yes, I've had dealings with MRG (all good). Any way, I just left a message and a navbox-list of the articles at WikiProject Ships. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

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)
[6] is a direct rip off from my article! But looks like some useful material. BTW the previous Trumbull is more famous due to her role in the Revolutionary War. Wee Curry 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)

Deletion from quote[edit]

I reverted your edit at USS Adirondack (1862), as the material you deleted was part of a quote. -- Donald Albury 12:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, it looked like unallowable POV. And looking at that article again, I saw that none of the quotes (and there are too many) had any citations. I think the article needs rewriting, eliminating most, if not all of the quotes. Maybe I'll look at it later. -- Donald Albury 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of ships captured in the 19th century[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of List of ships captured in the 19th century at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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)


Military Historian of the Year[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally H[edit]

Hi. I get the sense you're more or less in accord with my observations about the cabal that seems to view themselves as owning the Thomas Jefferson article, particularly when it comes to the baby-daddy issue. Amusing that they seem so determined to keep certain cogent, key and quite easily referenced facts out of the main TJ article. When I first started looking into this I realized that outright assertions of his paternity with no further qualification as were stated in the article at the time were simply not supported. There remains an obvious bias and what certainly seems like a deliberate campaign to obscure key points without actually lying about them. I sense I've raised some blood pressure over there. How dare I introduce clarity and balance when every right-minded person *knows* what the truth is...  ;-) TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not the first to make issue with the language and POV presented on this topic. This issue has come up on the TJ talk page many times before, most notably here and here. In any event see Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

Post on your stamp page[edit]

Hi, I wrote something on your stamp page a couple of days ago. Don't know if you've seen it. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Gwillhickers. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson-Hemings controversy - "Current Scholarship" Parkwells' personal OR and POV section[edit]

Thought you might be interested in taking a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson-Hemings_controversy and the edit-sparring I've been engaged in over there today with Parkwells regarding the "Current Scholarship" section. He keeps making these uncited claims that are wholesale OR and POV on his part. More of the same "Scholarship Borg" stuff he keeps trying to smuggle into the TJ article.

"..In the last decade, many new works related to Jefferson and Monticello have been published, such as Richard B. Bernstein's Thomas Jefferson (2003); Andrew Burstein's Jefferson’s Secrets: Death and Desire at Monticello (2005); Christopher Hitchens' Thomas Jefferson: Author of America (2005); and Annette Gordon-Reed's The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (2008), which won the Pulitzer Prize for history and 15 other major awards. They have used their acknowledgement of Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children as a basis for re-evaluating the rest of his life and some of his political decisions.[63] Other scholars, including some associated with the TJHS, have published works that continue to argue against Jefferson's paternity.."

I looked at the single citation offered at that time (a book review) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/books/slaves-in-the-family.html?scp=2&sq=thomas%20jefferson%20garry%20wills&st=nyt&pagewanted=all for this mess and found that only one of the books or authors mentioned in the paragraph are even addressed by the review and of course the "..They have used their acknowledgement of Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and paternity of her children as a basis for re-evaluating.." verbiage is strictly Parkwells' concoction, nothing of the sort mentioned in the reference which doesn't mention the other books/authors.

I've eliminated the entire section a couple of times since it's nothing but Parkwells' blatant POV and OR soapboxing. You can see in subsequent edits where he's reinserted the section and shuffled some things around and reworded but it'd still his POV/OR. I'm about to blank it again - after referencing the same books it contains the uncited phrase "..Each historian includes the recent consensus that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children, and uses it in his or her evaluation of his life and decisions.." - again, Parkwells' words, not from a reference. I have no doubt he'll find some specious rationale to undo again but thought it could use some additional scrutiny by someone else who's aware of Parkwells' MO.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been going around in the same circle for some time. Right now I think I'll keep my efforts focused on the Thomas Jefferson page while Brad and ASW are working on the proposal. We still have all that POV bloat that needs to be checked. Yes, one look at his user page and the pages he's involved with and you begin to wonder if he's using WP to make a statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed...[edit]

...I am an administrator, which is why I closed your duplicate request on WT:Verifiability. That page is not for the discussion of individual sources, but for discussion of the verifiability policy itself. Quite apart from that, it is generally frowned to open the same topic in multiple venues because it fractures the discussion and makes it harder to reach consensus. Feel free to redirect the to the WP:RS/N copy in your own words. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you let them make that decision? Am asking for their feed back also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Who is "them"? Anyways, having two unrelated discussions on the same topic is a bad idea (if all agree, one is superfluous, if they disagree, there is no valid consensus). It wastes everyones time. If you want wider input, then point to one central location. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Why don't you let "everyone" decide for themselves if their time is being 'wasted'? In any case, thanks for not reverting again. If they hide or close the section then so be it. Let's give them a chance to say, either way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


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)

CSA flag[edit]

Please contribute your comment and/or sources at >> Talk:Confederate States of America#RFC Infobox flag choice << to select the flag representing an historic nation-state 1861-1865 from three alternatives, a flag sourced as _____ .

a) flown "everywhere" in the Confederacy, 1861-1864,
b) "not satisfactory" at the time 1863-1865, or
c) "never" seen by the participants 1865. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Gwillihickers, I'm appealing to you to see the balance that, even though you seek it, seems to elude you. You wrote:

Presenting missing historical content/context is neutral. All that is being done with the treatment of slaves and slavery is to show how Jefferson's feelings about slaves and slavery went beyond 'theory' and was something he practiced. Don't know why this is something that upsets you.

It would be wrong not to include this side of the story (added emphasis):

Most recorded incidents of brutality came from overseers and stewards. . . To support his “more rational and humane plan” of treatment, Jefferson sought overseers who embraced his approach. Jefferson stipulated that the whip “must not be resorted to except in extremities,” but his instructions were often ignored during his long absences. In the Mulberry Row nailery for example, the “small ones” could be whipped for “truancy.” In the fields, enslaved men or women could be flogged for arriving late or weeding too slowly. http://www.monticello.org/mulberry-row/topics/treatment

Although Jefferson praised Lilly as “as good a one [overseer] as can be,” Lilly’s management was punctuated by violence. In 1801, Jefferson was concerned with his overseer’s “treatment of the nailers.” In 1804, joiner James Oldham [a white man who worked for TJ]] charged Lilly with “Barbarity … moast cruel” after whipping an ill James Hemings. http://www.monticello.org/mulberry-row/people/gabriel-lilly

The plain truth is that TJ had moral compunctions against slavery but was trapped in the plantation system. I believe he sincerely wanted the most humane treatment for his slaves, but 1. Since they were involuntarily in bondage, they were not always cooperative, and 2. When TJ was away, the most he could do about cruel taskmasters was wring his hands.

Please stop arguing and editing against the well-sourced fact that TJ was most vocally and publicly opposed to slavery at the beginning of his career. Your insistence otherwise causes much unnecessary discussion and has to repeatedly be corrected in the article.

I understand your desire to resist the idea that TJ was an ogre. He is my favorite president and my next-to-favorite founding father, and we owe it to him to write a neutral biography that doesn't present or oppose a certain bias ("He was a villain." "He was a saint.") but just tells the facts. Cmguy seems to lean toward the villainous side and you to the saintly. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

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 [7]. 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)

Military history coordinator election[edit]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oldie-newbie request[edit]

- thanks again for your guidance at Thomas Jefferson talk, my only 'provocative' hit in over 3,000 edits. Though I'm again facing repeated reverts from the same Golbez who repeatedly reverted my picture caption edits at 'United States', I've steered clear of that I think. But recent developments lead me to ask for mentor-ly-like council. Please consider yourself invited to simply tell me I'm 'barking up the wrong tree', or 'not here, not now', or 'do some more homework'.
- I made an edit on the United States article intro paragraph, an editor suggested something else at talk, I changed it. Golbez reverted it. we went to talk, I thought I understood him, I edited the page, Golbez reverted it. We returned to talk and talk.
- Please take a look at United States:Talk, I have been fencing to little effect in two sections, Talk:United States#Into: territories -- political v. geographic, and Talk:United States#Intro first paragraph.
- This oldie-newbie doesn’t get it. Golbez just observed, since no one joins in the discussion, he must be right ipso facto, the consensus is undisturbed.-- But I just thought I had my thoughts refined enough to call for a ‘request for comment’ – I think that’s what is now called for ... ?
- My modest proposal, reduce some of the wordiness of the first paragraph, and incorporate a political sense of the United States as 21st century sources see it: U.S. State Department, U.S. Census, CIA and U.S. Congress. Current conventions of scholarly geographical associations may not admit to that, so the proposal may be fruitless if geographic conventions govern the wikipedia United States article. But none of that speculation on my part has come forward, only wiki-fencing. I just thought to give a little political inclusion a go. Introduce the people first, the place second. The third draft runs thusly, additions and changes in italics:
The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic of over 314 million people principally residing in fifty states. U.S. citizens in the federal district and five other territories in the geographic United States have delegates in the U.S. Congress representing 4.5 million. The country possesses nine uninhabited islands and it maintains special political relationships through Compacts of Free Association with two United Nations members and one foreign dependency together numbering 170,000. The U.S. is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Other territory is found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2), the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.
- Well, anything more you should read for yourself, if you could take a few minutes. It’s an interesting exercise in wiki-editoring regardless of the outcome, and I really should get back to another article if this cannot go anywhere. I trust your judgment. I'll watch here for a reply. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay TVH, I took a quick look into it. It's a little difficult to sort out the lengthy discussions while trying to cross reference it with edit history and past versions of the lede. Currently the lede includes the phrase The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. Yes, this belongs in the lede. If it can be done with 'less wording' this is (usually) better. Not sure what 'the' issue is here. As I indicated, I'll have to sort through it further. If you take the matter to RFC my advice would be to simplify the issue for them, as I can tell you from past experience, when a Request' gets too lengthy and involved the folks at RFC will just get bleary-eyed and may let the request 'rot on the vine'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the calming encouragement. I'll work on it to make it as concise as I can. The only other one I've launched was over on CSA concerning its flag, Golbez was on my side ... I'll have to give it some more thought to get it right. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi TVH, sounds okay. Remember, that in the effort to be 'concise' it's also important not to stripe away historical content, and moreover, the context. I think you saw what happens to sentences/sections (on the Jefferson page) when isolated statements with no context are made -- they can often change the meaning and tone of the phrase or sentence, as I'm sure you're aware. If someone ever takes you to task about writing 'more' than a bare-bones statement just remind them that WP is not a dictionary. In any event, I did not mean to imply your writing leaves people bleary-eyed, you write very well, it's just when a RFC discussion goes back and forth that the RFC people, who have to sort through many cases per week, can, shall we say, lose interest. Right now I'm taking sort of a break from editing busy pages like the Jefferson page and am working on adding citations to various naval/ships articles and am building a general early American naval bibliography to help other editors build various related history pages. Nice and quiet. :-) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Well looking back, all I really wanted to say -- in the first sentence-- was that the geographical extent of the U.S. is 50 states, a federal district and five territories. -- that will probably be the actual substance of the rfc. The problem is not just inertia which most newbies complain about, it is that the enterprise is collaborative, a different frame of reference. I am still thinking through the rationale, so I'll post the next step of my thinking process on u.s. talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

Article bibliography v. 'further reading'[edit]

- In an article, what do you think of 'further reading' versus 'bibliography'? Can the bibliography of the article be expanded or subsumed into 'further reading'?
- In Battle of Fort Pulaski I categorized the bibliography into 'Further Reading' to put them into a framework -- as an alternative to providing annotations at each title, because conciseness is a virtue in an online encyclopedia. In the Pulaski case, 'Archives' for primary sources, 'Memoirs and biography' - U.S. and C.S. -, 'Monographs' for scholarly treatments -- which are few, and 'Curriculum' to draw the eye of lesson planners among secondary teachers so near and dear to my heart. Is there any guide for standardized bibliography or further-reading sections on the military pages?
- Your note about Malone's biography suggests some sort of division in the bibliography at Thomas Jefferson. Primary sources should be kept in tact, but I think it might be useful to divide volumes which are Comprehensive survey such as Malone's, versus historiographic monographs by areas of study -- such as diplomacy, presidency, women's studies, politics - like Adrienne Koch, "Jefferson and Madison: the great collaboration" is one of my favorites to explain the Act of Religious Freedom and the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions, and Journal articles.
- 'Great Collaboration' is still boxed unpacked in the garage, it's the source for my next 'Thomas Jefferson' contribution. I hate moving. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Sources for Further reading should be listed under such heading any time they're not used as ref's but are still useful for their (alternative) content. There have been times when I could not cite an item with existing Reliable sources but instead cited it with a source found in Further reading. As you may have noticed in the Bibliography of early American naval history I have denoted the primary sources with a bold 'P : ', however, in bibliographies like the one for Jefferson the Primary sources are listed under their own subsection. As primary sources usually have to be used in conjunction with a secondary source it's best that they be listed separately on any given history page. Generally not used a sources by themselves, there are exceptions regrading their usage. i.e.Widely publicized Primary sources, like Jefferson's letters or Notes on the State of Virginia, can be used, per editor and publisher, to cite various items by themselves but caution should be used. i.e.No No original research. -- Gotta run. More talk later. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- good info. thanks.
- Next. are ORA and ORN allowable in the same way as "Notes on Virginia", to take note of events, names, dates -- "On November 5, Jones' attack was reported as failing at the farm barn." but NOT grounds to make a judgmental characterization such as -- "On November 5, Jones was routed in the worst defeat suffered in the entire conflict." -?-
Insert : A certain amount of human embellishment is allowable. e.g. A great victory. The important thing is not to change the facts and/or meaning. Discretion is the key, realizing that almost any statement containing such adjectives (i.e."worst") can be so challenged. As long a statement is not flagrant with its presentation of such an event most editors will have no issues. That's been my general experience. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- also, I want to work this next week on figuring out proper coding so a note < ref > automatically generates a line in the bibliography. My last contributions to Blockade runners of the American Civil War as footnoted looks all out of place, cluttered and unprofessional. Rats. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
In many presidential/historical WP:featured articles bibliographies the citebook (i.e.coding) is used that links refs, imbedded in the text, with the reference notations under a section most often referred to as References, which in turn are linked to the given source in the bibliography. Example: Go the the Stephen Decatur page and click on any reference number in the text. As usual it takes you to the reference section where the page number/reference is listed. To view the title, and other information, click on the page number. You can use the 'back' function on your browser to take you back to the page/text were you started from. Convenient, when you're reading along. I'd recommend doing this first before reading further:
To link a page reference used in the text to a given source listed in the bibliography Cite book uses the
' |ref= ' parameter.
{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Robert |title=American History |ref=Smith |publisher=Publisher-name, city |year=1967 |pages=123 |isbn=xxxx }}
Other parameters can be added but I'd concentrate on the basic ones used above first. -- Below is an example of a reference, used in the text that will link to references and the source listed in the bibliography.
<ref>[[#Smith|Smith, 1967]] p.123 </ref>
The above reference will be displayed (as shown below) in a References section, and will there link to the cite book listing in the bibliography:
Smith, 1967, p.123.
Hope this helps, any other questions feel free to ask away. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- I meant ORA as the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, and ORN as the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies.
- Some of my contributions have been dismissed out of hand elsewhere for using them as sources.
- The difficulty arises when the "predominant scholarship" in a field is made up of those with a career of reading microfishe of newspapers held at the university where they are enrolled in a doctoral program. First of all, 19th century newspapers are infamously partisan, second, they have limited information, third, the 'correspondents' of the day were not schooled at the Missouri U. school of journalism. They were effected a sort of stream-of-consciousness commentary from their travelogue-point-of-view, war as one's grand tour of Europe.
- Most importantly, reading scholarship which omits ORA and ORN, regardless of the author's wide understanding, inclusive impulses and ethical integrity, -- one cannot quickly see the context of events from extended, weeks and months-long military dispatches and reports on the subject, literally from ALL sides -- on land, at sea, infantry, cavalry, artillery, Union and Confederate -- relative to the events themselves. As opposed to say, the impact of the reporting of those events on recruitment quotas -- or elections returns.
- Thus the previous stub on the Battle of Fort Pulaski which dismissed the overnight shoot-em-up as insignificant, reflecting the local Savannah press as a subversive humiliation to the Cause by a disloyal incompetent, striking his colors after an overnight barrage from over a mile away without suffering casualties. Reading into either ORA or ORN shows an entirely different picture. Indeed, I really want to write a bio piece at WP which does Olmstead justice, since both his men, his commanders AND his foes, both at Pulaski, as a prisoner of war, Charleston Harbor fortifications engineer and those afterwards in his regular infantry command in the western theater -- all -- considered him admirable in every respect as a brave and able leader and opponent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Using primary sources[edit]

Yes, using most primary sources by themselves is not allowed, which in many cases is unfortunate. Regarding the "predominant scholarship", I have had the same idea thrown at me for various reasons from time to time, only it was referred to as "modern scholarship". This is a paper argument at best because historians, past and present, have largely been a divided entity whose opinions on topics, esp controversial ones, vary considerably. This is esp true among historians regarding Jefferson as I'm sure you're aware. Next time some one tries to prop up their argument with such ideas simply enlighten them to the truth.
Regarding Olmstead and Battle of Fort Pulaski, I can only suggest that you look for sources that corroborate ORA/ORN accounts, and if you come across a source, esp a so called "modern" source, that offers a radically different opinion, check to see from what sources it bases its account on. While we're at it, let me inform you that there seems to be a concerted effort on WP to 'rewrite' American history by various 'friends of America' who IMO (and others') are agenda/partisan driven, while other editors simply parrot what they've been told by their peers and college prof's. Evidently it takes some people many years to grow out of college. -- I'll let you decide that one. Some time ago ( 1 , 2 ) [add: with the help of a couple other editors we] uncovered this sort of activity on the Jefferson page, where a few editors used that page as a coatrack to present their skewed and distorted view of Hemings and slavery. It has taken us since that time to get the page to read like a history account -- as compared to a political hit piece. Be aware. Meanwhile, I will help you look into sources for Olmstead that reflects ORA/ORN accounts. Add: There are lot's of existing sources in various bibliographies to check, many of them available on line, partially readable to completely, and Google book search is also a good place to find material overall. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

- okay. thanks for the encouragement. and, this sort of agenda writing has white-washing properties in historiography which tend to not only 'color' narratives, they also cover up interesting and important differences, rendering historical characters with a broad-brushed sameness masking the distinctions in each individual. General George H. Thomas -- the "Rock of Chickamauga" came from Southampton County, Virginia, of Nat Turner Rebellion fame, AND
- Where anti-slavery Quakers in the southern half of the county along the North Carolina border used to make periodic collections in their church services to go to Norfolk and buy slaves literally off the boat to grant them freedom and provide education, tools and land to live as freedmen farmers among them.
- AND where a majority of 1861 voters did not agree to secession, AND where black and white Southampton Virginia Turners today, directly descended from the murderers and the murdered of Nat Turner's Rebellion, now attend the same Baptist Church as a statement -- in their view -- of faith and racial reconciliation to the nation and the world.
- Imagine my surprise as a Virginian, reading a "modern scholar" who used Thomas to represent a national significance in social history by ignoring his national military service or its relevance to emancipation, -- observing ONLY that following his Union affiliation in the Civil War, his three sisters never spoke to him again -- as a demonstration of their southland vitriolic hatred of all things yankee? Or, a 3:1 family context for proclaiming that generation's white Southampton, Virginia backwardness? Or, as a universal imperative, you can never be more than what your sisters allow? The sisters did shun George, so much was indeed true, but the development in that family's relations ALONE was not an example of national significance without more information -- I do not know what the sisters' share of the family inheritance turned out to be, for instance -- the significance of Thomas was not in any recognizable Virginian historical CONTEXT that might be required by scholarly integrity ... but as this passage may now approach wp:soapbox, forgive me. On the other hand, thanks for the assist at 'blockade runners' notes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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.

Olmstead[edit]

In any case, I looked into Olmstead, the commander at Fort Pulaski during the seige. From what I have read he surrendered the fort after one of the five walls was breached by cannon fire, which allowed cannon shot to hit the powder magazine within. Seems to me this was a wise decision, the fort falling because of no fault of Olmstead. Correct? In any event I would be interested in helping you create/build the Charles H. Olmstead article. As you know, Savannah was one of the main ports of entry/departure for blockade runners so the new Olmstead article could link to and relate to Blockade runners of the American Civil War page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

On blockade runners In the Further Reading at Battle of Fort Pulaski and in notes -- needs work as we discussed above -- Blockade Runner 1861-1865 By Angus Konstam. Sketch with description, p.9. , History of the Confederate states navy, Scharf, J. Thomas, 1887. Anderson, Bern. “By Sea and by River: the naval history of the Civil War” 1962. Reprinted unabridged 1989 Da Capo paperback.
there is Olmstead, Charles H., “The Memoirs of Charles H. Olmstead”. Hawes, Lillian, editor 1964 Collections of the Georgia Historical Society 14.
General History of Fort Pulaski] at the National Park Service recounts the Olmstead's defiant reply to the demand for surrender, wall breach, magazine penetrations and command decision to surrender. The on-again, off-again recurring fort-beseiger artillery duels amidst the continuing Union bombardment in the 'Pulaski' article is found in ORA-union accounts, and Gen. Gilmore's published monographs found online.
I remember a biography, perhaps a 19th century eulogy as a small book of Olmstead online ...
Then there is online searching in Official Records, Army for his name. His western regimental histories -- First Georgia (regulars) which I found before online, he was breveted to brigadier or served in the place of one for a season in the chaos of the western army command shuffle? must look again. There may be a regimental history for First Georgia (volunteers) also out there. Olmstead was responsible for food allocation to freedmen in Savannah during the first months of Reconstruction, and made subsequent addresses to veterans organizations. That may have come from notes in an archive of his papers made by the library collections department online. Must look again.
Your offhand source assessment? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The two external links you included above are dead links. (now fixed) In any case, there might be a way to include some of Olmstead's writings (i.e.primary source) if we are unable to corroborate them with secondary sources. i.e.Instead of making a statement and using Olmstead's writing as a source we simply mention that e.g.Olmstead claimed in a letter, etc, etc -- or perhaps something like this .. In an 1865 speech Olmstead maintained .... I'll check into that a bit further. Also, ORA are not necessarily a primary source if they were written by another party some time after the date/event in question. Primary sources involve a person(s) who was present and/or directly involved with the date/event in question. Official records are not necessarily primary sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
(I fixed the address/links above. Somehow you managed to include the '|' (pipe) character at the end of both Url addresses.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I know that big-hat wiki-editors are giving this some thought, but I suppose with enough time, the wiki-code issue will just be overcome by the progress of events. I fear I am not one of Tom Friedman's "digital natives", but an "immigrant" -- meaning I am not fluent in writing code as is widely understood and mastered by "anyone under 30" -- oh ! -- I never thought I would see the day that I would rue THAT phrase --. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

‘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)

Robert F. Stockton page[edit]

Gwillhickers,

You recently edited the article for Commodore Robert Field Stockton. In that article under "Conquest of California" it shows that Commodore Robert Field Stockton was the "first U.S. Military Governor of California." Even though it was just for 7 days I show that John D. Sloat was the first U.S. Military Governor of California. Thoughts? Jerry Stockton (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The only edits I have made to the page involved bibliography work Content added about Robert Field in California was entered by another editor. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

Syllogism for “a part of”[edit]

I added an insert subsection at Talk:United States, "Syllogism for “a part of”. I would appreciate your look-see. Thanks in advance.

[aside] For context, Golbez, Mendaliv and CMD can be reasonable, although they may slip occasionally and they persist in an incomplete view on points. Other personal-attack-only fellas bullied Buzity off in January I think, or work intervened to release him for the moment. My feeling is the three good-'uns ought to be cultivated, however difficult it may be at any particular exchange at a Talk page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Aye, TVH. I meant to get back to you sooner. Needed a break from the USA-talk page and went back to what I love to do most -- research and write about early American history. I took a quick look yesterday, at your request, and frankly, I ran out the door and left my apple pie on the front steps. Seems everyone is still hacking out sources and taking shots at 'includes' or 'doesn't include'. To get back into the fold I see I will have to do a lot of additional reading, on top of what I'm doing here in this neck o' the woods. If you could just give me a summary as to what 'the' debate is about at this juncture I'll come around and see what I can do. Mulling through past court cases and comparing them to others in terms of 'context' and what 'was' meant and 'not' meant seems like it will just sustain the never ending debate over there, but enough of my optimism. We have the lede that we voted on, so if you could just tell me what the 'prime' objective is at this point I'll be glad to help out if I can. If anything, at least I can remind some of our esteemed fellow editors what rules they are trampling into the ground, or ignoring, aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the intro at 'United States' is very much appreciated. Thank you for shepherding the process. About the rules. The ETs have so far given three sources, all of which support “including territories”, but they misstate the sources. At some level, the rule somewhere must be, Editors must read the sources they reference. I suppose I need to use the FACTCHECK element of Wikipedia? This morning I found Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute. Is that it?
Insert : If you can prove that a statement is not factual you can indeed pursue the matter in terms of WP policy -- whether this involves a simple discussion or involves taking the issue to a RfC or Noticeboard is another (discretionary) matter. The item in question should be a clear 'non fact' if you bring the matter to a noticeboard.
  • Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review gave us the modern era territories have a constitutional status “equivalent” to [‘incorporated’] states. There must be a rule that a source can mean what his words say, modern territories are not peopled with second-class 1910 non-citizens.
  • Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference, Most in the U.N. see U.S.-PR situation as “acceptable”, or “benign” ,“adequate under contemporary law”. Only a “small minority [sees it] as unlawful per se.” The "situation" is commonwealth, there must be a rule against equal weight to fringe ideas.
  • Now, Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, In the Insular Cases, the court found that “Puerto Rico was not a state but rather a territory held by the United States”, likewise Hawaii and Philippines. [No territory reported as an 'incorporated' territory has ever had all the rights and privileges of a state before being admitted as a state. There must be a rule that forbids non-sequiturs.
->> Further, with Vignarajah, we have notes citing examples of "the literature" for both Torruella, and Sparrow using the very articles I have previously, so the snarky dismissal of their scholarship should not stand any longer, by some sort of rule.
I’m only about half through, but it is nice to read a secondary source summarizing the cases and putting them in historical perspective. I agree -- the editor synthesis of primary-source cases is tedious, -- but that’s why we have secondary sources to allow THEIR judgment play in summary. Nothing more for now until I read the source through, but more later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just added some content and sources on the U.S. Talk page regarding the U.S. Census Bureau that should give added perspective in terms of 'include' and 'exclude' regarding territories. As the court cases vary and can easily be interpreted differently, so it seems, perhaps it's best not to try and establish the 'include' argument from just this one perspective. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


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)

Note[edit]

I've moved the discussion sections from GA review to the talk page proper at Talk:Casimir Pulaski. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another note[edit]

Since this relates to your recent changes: [8]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013[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) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Timing of Edits File:Jefferson, Thomas (signature on check).jpg[edit]

You removed this from the Jefferson article while it was still active as an FP nomination (which still has not been officially declared).--Godot13 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, the image did not relate to any of the topics mentioned in the Thomas Jefferson article. If however you can add some historical background regarding this check, it, and the image, would be most welcomed. Do you know why Jefferson made a check out to himself? I'll tell you what. I will place the image in the Presidency section (2nd term), since it remotely relates to his presidency, but if some one else chooses to delete it then we better find some historical info' that directly relates to this check. This way, no one will have a solid reason to remove it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013[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) 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Gwillhickers! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Trivializing and misuse of Awards[edit]

Wikipedia:Trivializing and misuse of Awards, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Trivializing and misuse of Awards and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Trivializing and misuse of Awards during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tito Dutta (contact) 03:38, 27 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)

talkback from 78.26[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gwillhickers. You have new messages at 78.26's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

on Coles: Ordinance of 1787.[edit]

Congrats on your new article on Edmund Bacon. I completed Meecham's bio of Jefferson, I'll make a point of chiming in as points are raised on Talk there. I found John V. Quarstein's 2006 "A history of ironclads" which grew out of a timeline laid down at the Mariner's Museum in Newport News. Turns out there were 34 Confederate ironclads, with six keels laid never delivered. I am reading Iain Dickie, et.al. 2009 "Fighting techniques of naval warfare 1190.BC-present: strategy, weapons, commanders and ships" in the 19th Century chapter, which includes a section on ironclads and an illustrated account of the Battle of Mobile Bay.

On Coles: Ordinance of 1787. You may recall editors dismissing my viewing the essentials for including a territory in the US federal republic. As it seems there is a crew now following me around dismissing my restatement of sources, without any sources of their own. Never mind. I'd like your take on the following take away. I plan to try to edit a US territory article about once a month for about a week each try, refining my research and presentation without disrupting or monopolizing (sigh). Here is the first cut from Coles which you linked for me (well, for WP readers).

Of course, after the first section, there is the history of the thing which must also be read for understanding. But the standard for Congress incorporation of US territories in the Downes case is that status of territories at the signing of the Constitution, as established in the Articles, that is, in the Ordinance of 1787. So here goes with Jefferson's committee report, first legislation, second legislation consolidating information from page 6-10 and 12-14.

From Ordinance of 1787 1856. Hist. Society of Penn. by Edward Coles. Passed July 13, 1787, repealed that of April 23, 1784, [p.6-10, and 12-14.]: Providing for a temporary or Territorial Government;

1st. authorized adoption of laws modifiable by them:
2nd. to have a representative on the floor of Congress, with the right of debating but not of voting, until the population of 60,000, then
3rd. authorizing “the formation of a permanent or state government”; and
4th for its admission to the Union as a state on equal footing with other states.

Provided both the Territorial and State governments should be established on the following principle as a basis, which were declared to be articles of a charter of compact, unalterable but by the joint consent of the US, and the particular state with which such alteration was proposed to be made as with the original states:

1st. “That they shall forever remain a part of the United States of America.”
2nd. That in their persons, property and territory, they shall be subject to Congress, and to the constitution and subject to pay a part of the Federal Debt, as the other states.
3rd. That their respective governments shall be republican in form.
4th. That new states could not interfere with primary disposal of the soil by the US. That there be no tax on the property of the US.
5th. That non-resident land not taxed higher than residents. Water transportation will be forever free to US citizens.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Looks like you've been pretty busy. You might want to check in on the United States#Settlements page, and the talk page as there is a lot of content I added involving the Virgina Company, indentured servants, Virginia act of 1670, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick overview. I like the balance of social history. After all that Jamestown, seems unbalanced unless something nice is added about new England/north need be said, about their education intellectual leadership on the continent – remember Madison et al in the south educated at Kings College NJ, Hamilton got a scholarship up there …

Natives, colonists exchanging gifts
Culture-clash. Native American gift-giving obligated the giver, for Europeans, the receiver.

Slavery is well written, but later editors will carve it up as being too long. Writers here are flying at 10,000 feet, they need to climb up to 30-50,000. Love the addition of Cromwell, hello, “the king’s Old Dominion”… The New England fisheries were important from this side of the pond because it extended that tradition of trading with other nations for commodities outside the mercantile system-- one could imagine an independent commercial life. Not sure how to wrap that in there.

I am discovering the large amount of humor directed at my earnest efforts, and I really am going to lighten up. However, just between you and me: My wikicommons-found illustration of a native American was at first deleted with an anachronistic WWI pinup “Columbia”, now we have the image, but the caption is altered. The demonstrative confrontation over betrayal in part due to cultural misunderstanding --- “Indians giving a talking to Bouquet” is reduced to a benign “trading”. I can find a source if it is called for. I suppose it is better as it stands than an image of slaughter one way or the other, which is what we had a few months ago.

As aside as the Euro pictured is French: Coles notes on p. 16, preexisting slavery under French in west. p.18 [in opposition to Northwest Ordinance prohibiting slavery,] “the long and extraordinary acquiescence in the continuance of the bondage of the French slaves … some contending for it under the treaty of 1763, and some under the terms of cession from Virginia -- was of course overcome by Illinois Governor Coles, Jefferson's secretary and neighbor, with at least moral support from Jefferson, whom Meecham describes as proposing the prohibition of slavery in Virginia west of the Appalachians at some point in his career. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, could you perhaps make some of these comments on the US talk page? We need the opinion of more than two or three editors. Mind you, given some the editors there, it would be best to keep comments simple. I know this must be tough for a man of your intellect and background. Face-smile.svg -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
ahah. yes, I need to gather myself for another charge at the breach, into the breach, into the breach, once more. Maybe some work on ironclads would do the trick as a moral equivalent to a wikibreak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I boldly reentered my caption on the image, and it seems to have stuck five days. Recently I beefed up my User page with Userboxes at the top, and added the journeyman editor award. I made a recommendation on the ideas page for 'project manager' to be illustrated with a Gantt chart in addition to the existing stapler. Another suggestion on the page was for a Userbox with the info: This user recognizes WP is not a video game. which is too negative to pass, according to the guidelines, probably. But I can relate. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013[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) 15:05, 25 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)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013[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) 23:20, 20 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)

For your consideration[edit]

I very much appreciate your work with c/e-ing my articles. Please, however, consider this story about a reference: link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following. When you say "my article" are you referring to the Kosciuszko article? I have no problem with your "my" reference, I just want to be clear on that. In any case, have I removed any cites that I shouldn't have? -- Gwillhickers 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Regarding these links: <ref name="Herbst437"/>, it wasn't I who removed them. -- Gwillhickers 04:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
My, yours, ours, pronouns like this are difficult on Wiki. But yes, I think you did remove some references that shouldn't been removed, in [9]. For example, you removed the reference from the end of the sentence ending with "to the buyout of the slaves". I very much appreciate your assistance, but I thought you'd want to know about the consequences of reference removal for future consideration. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Arghhh !! I am so sorry for not remembering. I assumed this had happened just recently. Didn't realize this happened so long ago. I usually omit repetitive cites if the same one occurs one sentence after the other, but if you prefer to have them occur differently it is no issue with me. Again, my apologies for not remembering. Just a note: -- Many editors also remove repetitive cites, so if you want to keep them you'd better check on them on a weekly basis. -- Gwillhickers 17:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John L. Gardner (colonel) 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:
  • Lane Gardner''' served in the U.S. Army eventually achieving the rank of [[colonel]] during the [[American Civil War having also served in the [[War of 1812]], the [[Mexican American War]] before

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Winfield Scott may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * {{cite book |title=Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, LL.D. |url=[http://books.google.com/books?id=ACsOAAAAIAAJ&vq=navy&source=gbs_navlinks_s |last=Scott |first=

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/John L. Gardner (brigadier general) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 02:11, 18 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


American slavery and Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, although I have long felt a topic ban would be appropriate, I am reluctant to participate because such actions are often perceived as hostile or vindictive. Should I decide to add my support to the proposed ban, please know it is nothing personal, but in the interest of maintaining a stable, accurate article.
You have been recognized very recently as a valuable editor on other topics--Congratulations! There seems to be plenty of productive work for you here at WP. I wish you the best. Yopienso (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Gwillihickers, not sure what to do, but I wanted to weigh in.
Question - Gwhillickers central objection seems to be over whether an academic controversy can be described in the Thomas Jefferson article, or whether only the majority of recent scholarship can be represented, which seems to be within WP policy. Exchanges have not been collegial. I agree with Jprg1966 to question a ban for Gwhillickers on Jefferson altogether. As to slavery, as I remember, the quote objecting to ‘modern day stigma’ against slavery was an objection to anachronistic narrative inappropriately condemning Jefferson, not Gwhillickers advocating race-based slavery in the modern day. I’m interested in what Yopienso has to say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think of you as racist but others could see your comments that way...hence, the complaint there. In my opinion, the issue of Jefferson-slavery-Hemings is minor compared to Jefferson-and everythng else he is noteworthy for, and accordingly in keeping with the undue weight clause of NPOV, deserve mention, but not in a suffocating manner which overwhelms the real legacy of the person. Revisionist history likes to look at these folks from 200 or more years ago and say...BUT...they were slaveowners, as if to discredit all their achievements without looking at the societal norms of that era (slavery was legal everywhere in the U.S. until just before Jefferson died). The one-drop-rule wasn't a rule at all in colonial/early U.S. history and unions between mixed race and whites weren't uncommon at all, especially amongst the less affluent, but that isn't to say that blacks were treated with any form of equality in any manner nor were native Americans (in 1658 my own half-Mattaponi ancestor wasn't allowed to inherit from her all white father and the proceeds of the will went instead to her all white husband).--MONGO 02:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Gwillhickers. I just added my support to the request for a topic ban on Jefferson and slavery. I'm wondering if you would want to ask for a mentor who could show you why so many of us believe this is necessary. It seems a shame you would be unable to participate in a topic of such interest to you.
For the record, I happen to believe Paul Finkelman is unhistorical in his diatribes against TJ. By that, I mean I think he measures the man by today's standards instead of 18th-century Virginian standards. But nearly all of his facts are straight. I also sometimes bristle at Annette Gordon-Reed's tone and her championing of a race. Yet, I have studied her arguments closely and find them sound. I believe she merely reacts to the same kind of tone and white superiority that obtained for decades.
What made your comment about Bond and Swann-Wright sound racist was the fact that you identified them as the president of the NAACP and as director of Afro-American studies, respectively. I believe you now that you did not intend that as a racist comment and were perhaps identifying them as scholars of standing in certain fields. Yet, it did come across, even if you didn't intend it to, as "because they are black." A quick apology from you for the misunderstanding would have ended the problem.
Once again, best wishes. Yopienso (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yopienso, there are aspects that are nowhere taken into account regarding Jefferson. Gwillhickers has only compared slaves life expectancy in North America compared to the Carribean. The Louisiana Purchase is not only an historical fact, it is also a complex sociological fact, although this rather restricted to within slavery. An other aspect is that advocates of a romantic involvement of TJ with Sally Hemings often underline the anecdotal "TJ along with his slaves in a country where slavery was illegal" (France). They forget that the Americas were the Colonies and that the French Revolution soon decided that it had to reverse its course there. I do not think that they were being racists, I think that they discovered that all the things and combinations past could not be erased by a mere paraph on paper and proclamation. I think that Washington had it easier than Jefferson, where his personal position regarding slavery is concerned - not meaning it had to be easy for him by the way. --Askedonty (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban for Jefferson and slavery as written. While I am concerned at Gwhillickers personal attacks on alternative sources, a) I believe both sides of the controversy about parentage should be expressed with the modern majority view denoted in the article body, and b) variations in the practice of slavery should be admitted into the narrative without indicating approval of it, even at that time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
General comment: For better or worse, any opinions expressed here should also be expressed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Gwillhickers 18:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
At one point, the vote was nine to ban, eight opposed as written. I hope the administrator gives the poll enough time and reads the rationales carefully. Don't let 'em get you down, regardless of the outcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
TVH, thanks for your words of encouragement. Yes, I am hoping their main consideration will be the rationale and that they see the other personal allegations as the baseless jumps to conclusions they are. I'm also hoping that they will see how easy it is to get involved with sources when it comes to such controversial topics, as I've noticed a good number of editors are discussing these with other editors besides myself. Ultimately I hope they'll propose a resolution for all involved, and perhaps a cool down period for everyone (topic/page ban) for a short period of time. -- Gwillhickers 17:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

1847 stamps[edit]

Dear GW,

I have taken the liberty of replacing your 1847 composite in the Postage Stamps and Postal History of the US article with one of my own. My reasons for this are two:

1) The Postal Service image of the 5-cent that you used is an idealization: in both color and image quality it is suspiciously unlike any copy or photo of the real stamp that I've seen (I suspect it came from the 1947 souvenir-sheet). In my experience, the only 5-cent copies nearly that sharp are dark brown; the red brown stamps are all muddy and fuzzy to some degree. Given that the text itself comments on the poor quality of so many 5-cent examples, I think the image I supplied more appropriate.

2) Your 10-cent illustration, although I very much like its texture, is cut off at the bottom, not including the R W H & E letters.

Please feel free to revert if you think you have good reasons for doing so. All best, BFolkman (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

No problems -- new images look fine. I enlarged the image a tiny bit so the letters are legible for readers without having them break away into full view. Thanks for the courteousy notice. -- Gwillhickers 17:27, 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)

More civil war stamps[edit]

Army Navy 1937 issue10.jpg
Farragut Porter 1937 Issue-3c.jpg

I found the 1937 Army Navy issue I remembered from boyhood, picturing Civil War heros, a) Grant, Sheridan, Sherman, b) Farragut, Porter, c) Lee and Jackson. The Lee-Jackson stamp is not readily available as a single stamp at Wikicommons.

I know this violates WP:ACCESS, I would not use this "ears and gutter" layout for an article. But this text is too short to support two images otherwise. Happy New Year. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

aha. Serendipity. I found the Lee and Jackson stamp by searching the wikicommons on 'Lee and jackson stamp'. AND... I noticed, it seems you have done all the work already, as the editor of the images. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that the most recent issue is copyrighted by the USPS, --- are those newer images therefore restricted online? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Any (US) stamps issued before 1978 can be uploaded and used without copyright concerns. Those issued after 1978 have to abide by fair use policy and can only be used (displayed) in 'one', and only one, designated article. This involves explaining via Fair Use rationale, why the stamp image is needed in the article for the topic in question. This is usually not difficult when a given stamp is used in an article about stamps -- but you would have issues (not with me) if you wanted to use, say, a stamp with Elvis Presley, simply to show his portrait. Since there are other available photos in the public domain of Elvis the stamp image would likely be nominated for deletion because it was not necessary for purposes of showing his portrait. Otoh, if you used it in an article for the express purpose of showing 'the' Elvis Stamp' that would work. Which stamp do you have in mind? -- Gwillhickers 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've never started an article from scratch, but I though of maybe Stamps of the American Civil War, and maybe collaborating with you. To prepare I'm searching for a Scott's catalogue vol. 1 online for reference so I do not miss a Gettysburg Address commemorative, etc. And that project would collect commemoratives including the most recent commemorative issues with the copyright piece. Besides the article-start hang up, I am now on a Mac, so I have not mastered the image-capture function I used to use on a PC when I contributed the image of Olmsted commanding Battle of Fort Pulaski from a 1960s National Park Service brochure. All things new take more time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The title you have in mind, Stamps of the American Civil War, would pertain to stamps actually printed and/or used during the Civil War. If you want to launch an article about stamps with Civil War themes I would suggest something like American Civil War themes on stamps, or American Civil War history on stamps. You'll have to establish some sort of order about the page. You could either begin with the first Civil War related stamp issued, or you could list the stamps in the order their history occurred. I would also make two separate sections. One for History and one for People (i.e.Lincoln, Grant, Lee, etc.) With the exception of the Lincoln memorial stamp, (displayed above) issued in 1866 on the first anniversary of Lincoln's death, Civil War (related) stamps per se weren't issued for some time after the Civil War in the Army-Navy issues of 1937, which you included above here on this talk page, so you might want to mention this in the lede. Re: Format. I would have a short paragraph about the history on the stamp, with basic stamp information following, with the stamp image displayed at right. If there is more than one stamp for the topic/person you have to of course use other formats. This is not the sort of subject people will usually set out to look for, so if you want the page to be viewed often you'll have to link it up with pages that are often viewed. Needless to say, the American Civil War page would be one of the ideal places to link it. Pages for Civil War battles would be another good place for your page link to appear, usually under 'See also'. Any other questions, feel free to ask, no matter how many. -- Gwillhickers 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement. I'm going to start in with a stub once I figure out a title. Maybe "American Civil War on stamps". Can titles be changed easily once started?
The coming of the Civil War was begun in a way by the end of sectional balance in the Senate, and that is commemorated in stamps associated with the statehood of California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas. Events during the Civil War were not only battles, but the Trans-continental Railroad. Got my order in for Scotts specialty catalogue of last year. And I figure such an article would be the perfect place to feature the pairs of "people in the ACW" including both contemporary U.S. and C.S. stamps of Washington and Jackson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Insert : Even the Pony Express was prompted by the need for news (mail) to travel to California and back in an expedient fashion, as just before the Civil War broke out the union recognized the need to take California into its fold and the only way for this to happen in a practical manner was the advent of timely communication. Also, I'd recommend not including stamps commemorating (e.g.California) statehood in with American Civil War on stamps even though their statehood was the aftermath. And yes, you can rename (move) a page easily but I'd recommend that this be done no more than once, lest you have several redirects for the same page. -- Gwillhickers 19:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Clara Barton 1948 issue 3c.JPG
I'll try to lay out my idea in the sandbox. Five states in a row were made "free-soil" before Ft. Sumpter...but I understand the first images a visitor to "American Civil War in stamps" would expect would be maybe "people of the civil war". I believe we have one of Clara Barton. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Just finished uploading it. -- Gwillhickers 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I find this potentially very much more engaging than refighting inclusion of islander citizens at United States. It's remarkable they are not yet included in the lede, an IP editor brought it up again referencing U.S. statute, opposition still has no sources, but the issue appears "not yet ripe" for an 'inclusion' decision. So I'm letting go again.
I'd rather learn how to start a new article as a stub and then write, as I wrote to expand the out-of-date stub at Pauline Maier, learning a fair amount of American historiography of the period along the way to place her work in critical context. I have printed out copies of articles with my major contributions for a notebook for reference, relieving me of the pressure to fix and refix subsequent vandalism, or simply to challenge alternate perspectives --- such as lawyers blanking sourced characterizations of the Constitution and its social impact by Gordon Wood --- as not sourced in a court case citation. The hobby really must remain in perspective, and the main thing is enjoying a hobby of research and writing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Best to get a draft going in your sandbox, write up a simple lede, establish not only the theme of the page but its scope, establish a basic TOC, add a fair amount of content and stamp images to each section and then launch the page and begin building from there. I just created the Stamps of the American Civil War Category for stamp images in Wiki'Commons, allowing one to see a selection of Civil War related stamps with ease. Will you be including a separate section for Confederate stamps? As reliable sources go, an excellent source is the Smithsonian National Postal Museum. Later on you may want to expand the scope of the page and included Confederate Postmaster Provisional stamps. When the war broke out, many (now) Confederate post offices had to produce their own Provisional stamps. Good luck. If you get a draft going in a sandbox on your user page I'll drop in and comment on items from time to time. -- Gwillhickers 19:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
got the preliminary outline up and populated the first main categories with at least one example. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
got eight of the nine presidents with a civil war story. photo as a placeholder for Andrew Johnson. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To make the album-article more compact, I have introduced double image and triple image to replace some of the gallery layouts. It gives larger resolution to the horizontal commemoratives, then I took the vertical of your Clara Barton thumb as the standard height for regular issues, which is approximately that of regular issue captured in a gallery format. Generally the result compacts the images on a page viewed, placing more images per frame in a browser. I draft mostly in a frame about the width of an Outlook browser, it helps discipline my text to the vertical height of images for almost all of the sections.

I don't mean to reinvent the wheel. But my effort to date has far less narrative, so it cannot support the Table format used at Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States. Is the Table format required? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

sandbox link[edit]

User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox should work for the draft album/article. It reads,

American Civil War history on stamps is both the actual stamps and covers used during the American Civil War, and the later commemorations made to many noteworthy individuals, events and innovations.

Specifically Civil War-related stamps were not issued for some time after the conflict. Civil War generals and admirals were pictured in the Army-Navy issues of 1937, in part because they were promoted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt who was himself a stamp enthusiast.

However notable persons with Civil War backgrounds have been commemorated beginning with the commemorative at Lincoln's assassination, and a few of them have been included in this article as well as Presidents and noteworthy Americans with the Civil War in their backgrounds.

-- and more. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

After some further exploration into the mysteries of Wikidom, I continue tightening up the draft at User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/American Civil War history on stamps.
Somewhere it asked for feedback, --- the feedback is that the code for a Sandbox page link to the User Draft page is not offered on the User Draft template. hint: It uses the pipe convention within template double-brackets. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

submitted the draft stub[edit]

I submitted the draft stub, 2-3 week advertised before its in article mode, 1100 in line ahead of it. The bot invites me to continue improving it.

I've added narrative and reformatted all the three-cover/commemorative lines to two. Will that be good enough for the small computers at libraries you mentioned elsewhere? Or do the three-gallery images need reformatting also? Somewhere I read the limit should be 3-400px, does that apply to the double-triple-images format?

Most of the description is either directly from download image information or from Civil War sections of the individual's WP biography. Is there any call for in-line references? A page number in Scott's to prove there is a stamp out there on a battle I don't yet have pictured? When I get the technique down on the Mac, I'll be uploading images from Smithsonian to Wikimedia Commons, as I understand the process.

A WP notice told me the location of the submittal had been moved, but I can still reach my draft using the link I put up on my sandbox page above the TOC. I guess that's just technical queueing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want your page to be viewed adequately, at e.g. public libraries, I wouldn't put any more than five average sized (220px) stamps in one horizontal row, and no more than two covers in one hz row. You can get an idea of what works simply by viewing your page in a narrower window. As I said, I have a wide screen, but I don't use a window that is as wide to view/edit WP because lines of text are a mile long and often times the pics are scattered. Mind you, no one configuration is going to be perfect for all viewers, so you gotta sort of develop a 'sixth sense' about these things. Sort of. Since your page theme is about the Civil War, don't be afraid to work as much narrative into the mix as is practically possible. Anyone can look at stamps with Civil War themes. It's your job now to tie them in with the actual history. It's the history that has earned the subject's placement on a postage stamp. -- Gwillhickers 16:58, 23 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)

DRN publicity[edit]

I am sorry I got the sequencing wrong on the DRN. I jumped in following two editors thinking we had a volunteer at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Puerto Rico. It looks like both Ahnoneemoos and I are making newbie mistakes. How can we better publicize the DRN? at the top of the page the section is flagged, "needs attention". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You could post a notice on various related talk pages, or in other portals. Keep the notice neutral. i.e.'Opinions are needed at the 'So-and-So-talkpage'. Also, you can't 'spam' a notice of any kind. I forget the limit, but I think it's around ten notices to appropriate pages. In this case an appropriate page might be one of the U.S. history pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried out Puerto Rico project which rates the page as "top" priority, and U.S. project which rates the page as High. The Puerto Rico project Talk page features commendation for both Mercy 11 and Ahnoneemoos, the two are disputants at the DRN. Just as a year ago, TFD and Older≠Wiser have shown up at the DRN, again without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 2 February 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)

Stub submittal?[edit]

I wonder if I just need to let sleeping dogs lie...and pursue my stub Civil War history on stamps apart from a bot-alert discussion I found recently. So an update on recent developments.

My sandbox subpage for Civil War history on stamps is now redirected to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Civil War history on stamps, I've just discovered your useful comments and suggestions on my Sandbox Talk (and Lincoln stamp on User page now moved to Talk). While the one recorded comment, is positive, I received notice of a discussion between two editors, Brownhairedgirl and Ww2censor at User talk:BrownHairedGirl‬#US Civil War stamps: some advise to the effect that they cannot see how the stub can become an article, a gallery or a list.

I noted to both Brownhairedgirl and Ww2censor, that Rjensen, Ghwillickers and another editor at Talk:American Civil War suggested this topic as an article as a subsidiary article to American Civil War. Stamps from the Civil War period are not seen as primary documents by some editors to be included in the ACW article itself, so this seemed to be the proper placement. -- But I have not received a reply from either to date. Today I wrote another request for assistance directly to Ww2censor.

I fear I did not craft the scope of the article properly in the first place. Can it be a summary of the Civil War generation, a biography article of significant American personalities who were involved in the Civil War --- and commemorated in stamps for either Civil War or other lifetime achievements (wp:significance?) Can I safely ignore Ww2censor, since he has apparently not decided to act on the stub? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have Gwillhicker's talk page on my watchlist so I've seen this conversation. I added a reference to your ACW stamps article: ::Dodson, Larry (2006). A Philatelic Tour of the American Civil War (also known as the War between the States). ATA Handbook 155. Arlington, TX: American Topical Association.
There is at least one other book on the subject too, published by Time-Life. Here is the citation: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/83755745. Also, check out this article in Columbiad: A Quarterly Review of the War between the States, vol.3, no.2": http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/644611252. You might be able to get these through your local library. Hope this helps. —Diiscool (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the scope of the article: The title American Civil War history on stamps seems inclusive and definitive enough and doesn't limit content to just those stamps issued during the Civil War. I don't see any problems, real or assumed. If there are still citations needed these can be added as you continue to build the article. You can always put an In creation or a New page tag at the top of the article to let others know you are in the process of building and dealing with any issues. Just for the record, I have never seen anyone approach the creation of an article with such (undue) caution. Be bold. If there are issues they can be fixed, and you have support. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:42, 11 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)

fair usage[edit]

I tried three fair usage items, First Bull Run, Irish immigration and Vicksburg battle along the format, but so far I have not been successful in calling up the image. My uploads for older stamps seem going alright on Wikimedia commons, I have added five stamps there for use at my User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S.Territories on postage stamps. as well as Nevada statehood for 'commemoration of ACW on postage stamps'.

On the fair use items, I think I omitted category: stamp on the pull down menu for two of them. Should I simply resubmit, or is there a notice board that I can ask about the status of my uploads? Will the .tiff format in fair usage work in the table format -- it seems alright coming over from Wikimedia Commons. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The presence of a category doesn't determine whether you can access/view an image. Not sure why you can't access the stamp images you uploaded. When you completed the upload process did it say 'upload successful? Just a note, files uploaded with the 'fair use' procedure are 'Wikipedia' files -- not 'wikiCOMMONS'. Also, I would try to use the 'jpg' format. The 'tiff' format is usually used for large images with huge resolution dimensions. If you don't have any further luck with the info I've provided, such that it is, you might ask WW2censor -- he seems to be more familiar with this than I. In any case, let me know what was causing the problem -- just for my own knowledge. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried again today, in the title slot, the page automatically adds .tiff to the title, even when I alter the description. The selection at the bottom of the page does not let the upload continue. Mac allows 'Save as' from the default Grab .tiff file to .JPEG file, which I take to be the moral equivalent to .jpg on a PC. More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you upload a jpg image it should come through as a jpg image. Same with any other type. Are you uploading an image file from your own folder, or are you trying to upload it right off the internet to wikipedia somehow? Sometimes I'll drag an image from my browser window directly into a folder on my hard drive, but I wouldn't try this when uploading to WP. Not sure what's going on here. Maybe the problem is 'Mac'itus'? (rib, rib)
  • Btw, I've been meaning to ask you -- do you have all six of Malone's Jefferson bio'? Be nice if we could use him as a source for Jefferson's hopes/intentions in the draft statement. I have two of his books (Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty and Jefferson the President: Second Term, 1805-1809) but so far as I can tell they don't offer any info on that note. Will be using Jefferson and the Ordeal of Liberty to cite the agricultural depression we've been discussing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried successfully today, I can reformat from .tiff to .jpeg on the Mac which is rendered .jpg on the upload wizard at Wikimedia Commons. I've yet to reattempt the fair usage.
Sorry I don't have Malone, but I'll do a shelf search. I've moved away from my favorite used book store where I might have found the missing volumes.
WW2censor doesn't think much of my 'stamp album' pieces, he's checked in on my sandbox U.S. Territories on postage stamps. There is an independent sense of notability from the general culture as reflected on stamps...in the Mexican War, Kearny expeditions to New Mexico and California over militarily more noteworthy incursions by Taylor and Scott, for instance. He does not seem to have noticed the expansion of the narrative at the mainspace article. His critique seems to be that anything there can be read in an individual's biography, anything uniquely written in the 'commemoration of the acw on postage stamps', CACWPS, can be added to an existing biography.
That is as though to say, anything written in a summary article about the United States or the American Revolution article can be written in the state articles or the state histories. True, but also not true. Perspective changes, value is added, when Andrew Carnegie is placed alongside Eli Whitney, Rutherford B. Hayes, Clara Barton and Emily Dickenson in their Civil War careers. The reader of one presidential biography will not readily find himself reading the civil war biographies of the other eight presidents.
WW2censor once asked, what's the story?, the story is the lives of the notables in two generations leading and living out the American Civil War as adults, which is why we wanted the title to be American Civil War history on stamps, similarly named for similar articles. rats, well, I've added Nevada statehood image, Horace Greely text and image, links from See also at Union army and Confederate States army... it continues to get over 50 views a day. BFolkman has done a fair amount of copy editing, added two images from his collection and expanded both philately and historical material...I place great stock that Rjensen liked the concept, even in early drafts. --- any overall views on the article at this time?
are you working on a philately project? I am interested in statehood and territory commemorations. WW2censor seems to think that I might not have a knack for making up projects up on my own. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The wikipedia fair usage works with the .jpeg file, which is about 20% of the .tiff file size for the same image. I believe the limit I read somewhere is 100KB? That would explain the earlier problems. More later. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Glad to hear you're working things out. From my experience some people in the philatelic project have been over opinionated and sort of a wet blanket on many philatelic pages and is why I don't bother with the philately project here. Your article is fine. Currently I am not very involved with philately articles. Back in 2010 I created my first article, US space exploration history on US stamps which our friend here referred to as a 'fabricated topic', yet it was well received by others and to my surprise was nominated for and achieved DYK status almost immediately after I started and (nearly) completed it. A month later I created and built US Presidents on US postage stamps. That same year I created and built the Washington-Franklin Issues article and shortly thereafter US Regular Issues of 1922-1931, along with the templates used in each (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I also worked on a couple of other philatelic pages while I was at it. During this time I received nothing but criticism and complaints from a couple of the usuals in the philatelic project, never a word of appreciation, so I just stayed away from this crew and gradually got into other areas of interest, most notably, American and Naval history. Hopefully you'll have better experiences. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
So if there can be a U.S. presidents on stamps (instructive!), there might be a "U.S. territories on stamps"? I'm also working on a somewhat condensed version in my primary sandbox, first section, forthe section on 'stamps' in Territories of the United States, which is where WW2censor suggested it go.
According to my Scott's Specialized Catalogue index, there are several more territorial commemorative stamps pre-1976 which I can add upload on the subject. Is what I have in mind more properly called a List or Gallery on Wikipedia? What is the difference?
I am concerned that stamps are not seen as documents of the national cultural expression, weren't they once made by resolutions of Congress? I have to admit to a certain weariness in wiki-warring. The hobby for me is research, writing and contributing. I've learned a good deal about U.S. territories and treaties over the last six days, so at some level my primary purpose is served, I'd just like to figure out the most appropriate way of expressing it on Wikipedia. Any and all guidance is appreciated. Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no objections on the face of it, but is there enough territory stamps to warrant an article? In any case, since there are 100's of articles for individual video games, to my dismay, rather than articles for 'types' of video games (e.g.'Adventure video games', 'Military video games', etc) I don't see how anyone can object to an article about 'types of stamps'. It's not like you're making separate articles for individual stamps.
  • Lists and Galleries: To me, a phone book is a list. If we begin adding a paragraph of information for each or most of the items then it becomes an outline and ultimately an article. A gallery is just an arrangement of pictures. Galleries are found in articles. Never saw an 'article' that contained only pictures.
  • Stamps as documents: I have expressed the same idea on my user page: U.S. Postage also a testament to history. Is it safe to assume you're a stamp collector? From my experience, people who collect stamps, coins, medals, various types of antiques, etc, have a mind and appreciation for history.
  • Wiki-warring: I came to wikipedia a few years ago with the idea of relating stamps to their respective history articles. Stamps present their own challenge because as images they are instantly noticed when introduced to an article, and often that by itself is like waving a red flag in front of someone with their nose stuck in their monitor. Sometimes they are objected to for less than legitimate reasons as I'm sure you're aware by now. Most warring starts for three basic reasons. By those who have this rigid or distorted interpretation for policy, sometimes while ignoring other policy, esp over petty issues, or when people try to either push a pov, or suppress or distort one entirely, and when they approach editing with a 'one size suits all' mentality. If you don't stand up to it sometimes then, well, you've seen what can happen to some pages. All I can tell you is use discretion. -- In matters of opinion and POV, when you know something is true and you can prove it, that is always your best defense, or offense, if that's the case. Unfortunately resolving such matters sometimes means being less than friendly with certain individuals. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There are now 30 stamps in the sandbox "U.S. Territories on postage stamps". Yesterday I discovered how to create a subcategory on Wikimedia Commons, "U.S. territories on stamps" under "History of the United States on stamps", uploaded five more stamps and narrative into the sandbox. There may be 10-15 more if the category is expanded to "U.S. settlement and territories". I've scanned (eyeballed) a couple Wikimedia Commons categories, a few pages in Scott's Specialized Catalogue, and read through the C's in the alphabetic index, so far.

I collected stamps as a boy, filling in my U.S. collection by price point in my catalogue. First all the less-than-fifty-cent stamps... committing some substantial amount of the grass mowing and snow shoveling money to the pastime. It was fun figuring which ones I wanted first in each price level, sometimes valuing the art, sometimes the theme, sometimes completing a series. As I got older I found more interest in themes, and ended up majoring in history at William and Mary. I think I topped out at $3 in the 1960s, then life happened until retirement, now I have rediscovered the interest, but without the cost by computer. With the colorization of the Scott's catalogue, I now have the art piece of the hobby comprehensively at hand, I can magnify the images on a computer, but I still appreciate the artifacts themselves.

Maybe my appreciation of stamps as cultural icons is informed by the impact the Colonial Williamsburg archeological digs have had on the restoration and on subsequent social historiography of the colonial era. Knowledge can cross academic disciplines, including that found in philately, since the choice of design is a cultural phenomenon of societal expression. The Union of the Five Nations endorsed the Indian centennial commemoration of the end of the Trail of Tears bringing the Five Civilized Nations to Oklahoma, because in the 100 years 1848-1948, they had made important progress and contributions to the state of Oklahoma, historically, regardless of the perforations chosen philately. The stamp features the official seals of the Five Civilized Tribes. That is broadly a part of the story of the peopling of the West in the Oklahoma (Indian) Territory. There is more to stamps than watermarks, so I'm going forward the best I know how.

I reconfirmed reading an Arago article, stamp topics are chosen by Congressional Joint Resolution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I came into stamp collecting a little later in life, about 17, when I found a box of old letters and postcards in our attic. My Mom, God rest her soul, kept all the Christmas cards and other mail she received from her grandparents, parents and others and not long after she got married they ended up 'archived' in our attic. I found the old postmarks/dates just as intriguing as the stamps. As you may have guessed I'm not up on the later and latest issues of stamps. Didn't realize there were so many statehood stamps. Sounds like quite a topic! Go for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:27, 12 March 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)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 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) 11:50, 26 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)

Taking back my Talk[edit]

In an effort to take back by own Talk page at User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 2#Unwarranted image deletions, I have subdivided the section and made responses. I would appreciate your input at each section, as it is becoming clear that this and that at Non-free content review, is boiling down to a discussion about whether topical philately articles will be allowed stamps after 1978. Which I believe they should under WP policy as written and USPS fair use licensing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

re: limbo[edit]

I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive2 will be passed when the closing FA director gets to it. Looks good, to my unending surprise... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So you understand where I'm coming from:[edit]

As it was closed at NFCR (yours are first indent, mine second) and to answer completely your completely valid questions:

First you made the sweeping statement that referring to Other Stuff' is an invalid argument, and since then you have related to OSE examples at least twice and went so far as to explain, justify, why you did.
Those examples were introduced by others staying stamp use was justified by arguing OSE exists, neither that I could tell have been discussed in any detail. I counted that one example (the breast cancer research stamp) where, based on my past awareness of NFC discussions, wouldn't be questioned at all (it is the case NFCI#3 is designed to met) and the other that fails, so I am still properly evoking OSE is not applicable without considering consensus for that case or past consensus discussions (NFCR/FFD/FA/GA) of equivalent cases. So no, I'm not contradicting myself here.
Insert: Again, I only point out that you made a sweeping statement about OSE not being a valid argument, and now your above explanation will be at least three times you've said otherwise. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
And I'm not saying anything that changes it. Read OSE - it makes it clear that the general statement "X exists here so it should be fine at Y" is not a valid argument. But, "X exists here because it was reviewed by consensus, so it should be fine at Y" is a fair argument. From OSE "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight ..." (yes, it's about notability, but the same argument applies to files). --MASEM (t) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Re my statement: "NFCC is there to protect Wikipedia foremost", and your opinion that this is "flat out wrong". Yet in the same breath you say this is a "secondary goal". (!) Seems if I was "flat out wrong" this wouldn't even be a goal at all, so once again, you've grossly misrepresented affairs. You've been doing this alot, Masem. In the lede of the WMF page it clearly says The WMF does not edit Wikipedia content. The community handles content, because if the WMF did take responsibility for content, it would introduce liability issues per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Occasional office actions do occur, however. (emphasis added) That sounds like a legal consideration and a practice that protects Wikipedia. In the Wikimedia Foundation article itself , under Goals it says The Wikimedia Foundation's stated goal is to develop and maintain open content, wiki-based projects ... It does not differentiate between NFC and free content in this overall effort. And no where on that page do I read that NFC images will harm the Foundation, which is what you contend, which btw, also sounds like you're trying to protect WP as well.
You're quoting the WMF's statement that removes any responsibility it from any content (text, free media, or non-free) - note this has not stopped people from attempting to sue or legally threaten the WMF over content (see the case of the London Gallery attempting to remove what we consider free images from Commons). But this doesn't call out NFC specifically. The Resolution adds specifically for non-free that the free content mission is first and foremost; this is built atop the legal matter and is higher priority. (Only NFCC#2, and that's on our end, on WMF, that further limits works from press agencies to avoid the "commercial opportunity" aspect of the US fair use defence. And "open content" == "free content", so yes, the Foundation's mission is making the distinction between NFC and free content.
Insert : NFCC policy is there to protect wikipedia by limiting the use of NFC, because, as you point out the Foundation has been sued by people for NFC, or what they feel is NFC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
One small goal of NFCC is to protect the Foundation. But the larger goal is all about funnelling people into making free content and avoiding non-free where needed to meet the free content mission - the less free content we have, the less likely there will be legal problems down the road. But legal protection is not why NFCC and the subsequent resolution was created. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You have still failed to explain, or quote policy that says, how some NFC images "harm" the Foundation while others do not. Would you spare us the opinion and simply do that for us?
Every piece of non-free harms the free content mission to the same degree. But there's also the educational aspect that is the tradeoff for that harm - if the educational gain offsets that harm, then the NFC is good to be used. We have decided that based on several points of NFCC - most specifically minimizing uses, free-replacement possibilities, and contextual significance - that these are how we judge how critical they are to the importance of the education and whether that is sufficient to offset that harm. That's the balance we achieve with NFC.
Insert : This is getting ridiculous. You just talk unresponsively and generically. Again, you have still failed to explain, or quote policy that says, how some NFC images "harm" the Foundation while others do not. Proper use of NFC images doesn't harm anyone and they don't compromise free content, esp when there is no free equivalent, as is the case with post 1978 U.S. stamp images. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:VEGAN. It's an essay, yes, but it is the point to understand that if we're aiming to be a free (as in speech) content work, then any piece of non-free harms the mission, that harm being in a philosophical manner, not a legal or financial one. Yes, it may seem silly that if no one is getting sued over non-free images to be as anal as we are about them, but this is the challenge set forth and one of the few rules that the Foundation makes us follow. I can't point you to any policy because this is implicit by WMF simply having a free content mission; just as bringing a meat dish to a vegatarian buffet - there's no physical or legal harm, but it breaks the whole intent of the thing. This is key to understanding NFC particularly on a volunteer project. We're not forcing anyone to work here; if you don't like the fact the Foundation is trying to minimize non-free , you can copy the entire work and start it fresh with a less restrictive media policy if you want. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Masem, you have still yet to show how NFC content harms the foundation. Esp in cases where an NFC image can't be replaced with a free image, as is the case with USPS images. 'Meat with a vegi diet' "...breaks the whole intent of the thing"? That's hardly an analogy, esp since vegans make no exceptions for meat consumption, unlike Wikipedia, who allows for NFC use and has done so many many times before. Obviously your assertions here are quite subjective and need to be established on a per article/image basis. You harm the intent of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia if you impede the creation of articles on the scale you apparently, and evidently, would love to see. Wikipedia allows NFC images, which is why we have NFCC, but this is not a license for some individuals to be hyper-argumentative and even impossible with the policy, esp over the notion of the "harm" you see occurring. Again, NFC images are used when there is no free equivalent, so it's not like someone is ignoring free images for NFC images, as is the case with USPS images. This is the point you have repeatedly ignored, or refused to see. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Obviously "grey line areas" do and very often exist, so you need to stop spouting scripture like they don't and engage in discussion and consensus building before you to decide to delete an image on such fuzzy and opinionated basis. I realize it's much easier to simply zap an image and be done with it, and if an editor objects, just give him/her the routine recital about the Foundation, but you are harming Wikipedia overall by discouraging writers, who, without them, WP would just be a web site filled with a lot of bureaucratic machinations.
What is outside the grey line has already been defined for the most part at WP:NFCI and WP:NFC#UUI, respectively, and in the case of the stamp discussions, they already fell into NFC#UUI. Yes, these are still subjective, for the most part, so the only BOLD action that can be done is one removal before discussion begins. So no, no one is going around "zapping" images, but there are plenty of images that fail these predefined lines. When they fall in the grey area, that's when people either start discussions on talk pages or at NFCR before removing the image. And yes, what I've found is that the average WP editor that doesn't get involved on policy pages is completely unaware of NFC - they think we work by fair use which is far different. This is why we have to enforce it - it's not a policy that you can just ignore if you do any thing with non-free images and too ripe for misuse when people see images used elsewhere and cite OSE for why they use it (copy and paste rationales are very easy to spot). Using NFC should not be a carefree thing - it is necessitated by red tape to make editors think about if the NFC is really and truly needed.
Insert : No one said using NFC images was a care free thing, and no one involved in our discussion wants to skirt policy, esp where copyright vio's are concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No, but "care free" treatment of non-free is what happens if NFC is not enforced, because newer editors do think "oh, other stuff exists" and use images freely without understanding what circumstances the other images were used for. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Last, if we were to rigidly follow your reasoning about using NFC images, that "plain text" will suffice, one could easily remove all NFC images, and free images as well. Any image can be explained. Why do we need a picture of George Washington on that page when we can explain what he looked like. i.e.A tall caucasian man with white hair, prominent nose, two eyes, thin lips, etc. Sorry, your opinion about whether or not an image is needed can be applied to any image, free or non free. The image can do a far better job of presenting itself and supporting the topic on that note than can someone's description. And yes, sometimes we can link to a page where the image exists, but that isn't the issue. The issue is deleting 'the' image on such grey line areas without a discussion and a consensus first, so again, you go astray from the line of thought and once again, misrepresent the issue there. You have demonstrated at every turn why we need a broader consensus in these matters, and not just from the usual couple of editors around here.
No, that's a slippery slope argument. Yes, arguably, every image can be replaced by text, but as it is said that an image is worth a thousand words, if it takes a thousand words to explain an image, we're probably going to use the image over that much text. That, of course, is going to apply more to things like artwork and the like where things like strokes and shapes can't be easily determined but still applicable everywhere. But the other part of this is "does one need to see X to understand X", eg what NFCC#8 implies. Yes, a stamp image is a unique image but it also may be an unremarkable or duplicating in nature something else on the page already. Hence why we ask for critical commentary to show that it actually is remarkable and qualifies for use. That's a reasonably strong dividing line - which still is open for discussion but at least based on objective evidence instead of editors claim "But this image is necessary!" Again, this is not a novel approach to NFCC, this is how it has been practiced for many many years. --MASEM (t) 00:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Insert : As compared to "But this image isn't necessary, we can always 'describe the sunset', we don't need a picture of one." That's it, Masem. After all the 'legal talk', such that it was, conjecture about "harm", never explained in uncertain terms, and opinion about 'critical commentary', and how an NFC image is not needed (applicable to and allowing one to zap any NFC image) there was no decision in your favor, or ours, so we need to start treating 'critical commentary', 'needed image vs. unneeded image) and other ambiguous ideas/opinions with a discussion and seek a consensus before you take it upon yourself to delete an image on such a sketchy basis. I suspect, you'll just keep on talking here, so go ahead. This discussion will be purged from my page in a day or so, giving others a fair chance to read any final comments. If you don't at lease explain how an NFC image "harms" the Foundation, backed/linked to by policy, I will purge this endless talk directly. Please remember. Consensus is the way we should go. This is fair to all, and doesn't "harm" anyone. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this where an RfC begins? it seems the way the policy has been administered for six years does not admit the same fair use licensing for USPS stamps that is available for commercial baseball card uploads...which only requires a description alongside. When I suggested a clarification in policy, Masem countered that none was needed, only more restrictive guidelines at the Philately Project.
There seemed to be a fear expressed early on that without policing, Wikipedia was in danger of becoming nothing more than one big stamp album, and the integrity of the encyclopedia seemed to be uppermost: "This is an encyclopedia, not a stamp album". But in a visual information article such as a topical philately article, when it is a stub, will appear as a stamp album awaiting additional descriptive text and commentary with tertiary sources, as with any other stub. When it is enhanced with descriptive narrative and commentary, it is upgraded to a C class or B class article as those I have authored have been. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
TVH, In all fairness to Masem, I have to admire the time and effort he has put into matters, although I feel it's somewhat misplaced and that he's a bit subjective with many of the opinions involved in the discussions. e.g."Harm" to the foundation, etc. Arguments are often made with straw-men, or worst case scenarios that typically contradict the practices of the complainant. While he may have reservations about stamp articles, our "professional gamer" friend seems perfectly comfortable with the 100s of video game articles about games that will in most cases become obsolete or forgotten about in 5-10 years, unlike stamps, which are often tied in with the nation's history and are still collected and sought after e.g.100+ years after they were issued. Then there is the concern that Wikipedia is turning into a TV guide with 100s of articles about TV shows. Now we have articles about smut and perversion making their way into the scene. But hey, look out for those stamp articles! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have opened two new sections at Talk on WP:WikiProject Philately without a response, --- most recently the shorter comparison between stamps and baseball cards. The exemplar baseball card features descriptive narrative only. It is about a card with some notoriety, but without any critical commentary or discussion of the context of how the expression or behavior exists on the field or in the locker room. Every stamp is notable, even without the salacious content to be found in commercial baseball cards sold to juveniles File:Ripkenffcard.jpg, and upheld as an exemplar Billy Ripken at Wikipedia for encyclopedic entries WP:NFC#UUI #8. My point is that the example shows only descriptive text, not the critical commentary from tertiary reliable sources required of stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
As you know, the baseball card example comes under the heading of Other Stuff Exists, which may or may not help your proposal. Let's hope it does. I'll offer any help/imput I can if you're faced with tacky or unfair arguments again. The USPS as we know permits use of their stamp images for educational use and this should be presented in terms of how it will help and expand Wikipedia and that unlike most other NFC images, there is no worry that the copyright holder will have any issues with Wikipedia. In fact, it is quite possible that the USPS may see the presentation of their stamps on Wikipedia as a way of introducing them to the general public and hence as a way to help stamp sales, though of course this is not why we're using them here. But it wouldn't hurt to mention some of the fringe benefits. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussion at NFU review[edit]

So, to continue our discussion with Masem, after we were so rudely interrupted, I am led to propose #17 WP:NFC#UUI:

Propose #17. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 [is not fair use]. However it may be appropriate if the stamp itself is described alongside (#9) in a passage (#8), including sourced commentary (#7). The stamp must have been issued to the public (#5) or become controversial (#4), but it cannot also be used at the same time in its own article, which would take precedence for displaying the image (#6), unless the artwork is in the public domain.

That is based on the following understanding derived from items 4-9.

4. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is controversial. — A map, is not fair use, unless "the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article." — okay when the stamp itself is controversial.

5. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is proper subject for commentary. — An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war is not fair use, unless "the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article.” — okay when the stamp image is the subject of commentary, when the stamp has received attention.

6. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 image can be fair use if it does not have its own article. — An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, is not fair use, "if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)” — okay when the stamp does not have its own article.

7. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. A photo from a press or photo agency is not fair use, "unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.” Okay when the stamp itself has sourced commentary in the article.

8. Use of a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp has a passage describing the stamp itself. A baseball card is not fair use to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds unless "to illustrate a passage on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article." Okay when the stamp itself is described in a passage.

9. Use of a a USPS stamp after 1978 can be fair use if the stamp itself is discussed alongside the image. A magazine or book cover is not fair use unless "the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary.” — okay when the stamp is described alongside the image.

Any critique you may have would be appreciated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Coat of Many Colours responded to my invitation for comment on his Talk page, in what seems to be a fair restatement of your previously outlined view, --- "That might be be an immediate goal for you that would work. However if [ I ] were to put a dog in the fight I would be going [for] unrestricted fair use as conceded by USPS i.e. including educational use and catalogues (the last to allow inclusion in "list" type articles). I want to research the background first and that will take a while." --- I'm not sure what forum would be best for the more expansive objective. NFU review seems to be most concerned with individual cases, and the individual cases having been discussed, the discussion there was closed by another administrator uninvolved with the ongoing discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 7 April 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)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 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) 14:15, 20 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)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 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) 22:05, 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)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 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) 14:55, 21 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)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 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) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)