User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian

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


Contents

"The War Between The States"?[edit]

Really? Have you ever heard anybody but a Southron use it? Even in the South it's got that stale tone of secesh irredentism to it; and in 35 years in Wisconsin, including studies that led to a B.A. in History magna cum laude with a specialty in 19th- and 20th-century U.S. history, I've never heard anybody use it as anything but a joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

- Scholasticism does not impress. From the age of 12 I have been fencing with PhD-LLDs who were professors-emeritus (that's Latin to you), widely and repeatedly published and acknowledged intellectual leaders of scholarly schools such as the Lost Cause and 20th Century social movements, including Virginia's Massive Resistance. Fundamental misunderstanding and scholastic mis-orientation is not compensated nor assuaged by ivory-tower credentials.
- My branch of the family were Unionists in Norfolk, Virginia, so socially, our turn-of-the century unions with Navy and Marine officers turned to New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, the eligible men compatible with the young ladies of my family having died in the late unpleasantness, and the next crop suffering early and often in the War-to-win-all-wars. I fear my personal acquaintance with Nobel prize winners is only in history and chemistry and limited to the Harvard campus, but I've had passing introductions and an occasional lunch with men in other fields introduced by family members at the Cosmos Club in DC (that's the brains one, not the money (alas)). I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to discover that world-class genius and achievement is not necessarily passed on to all succeeding generations with the same certainty that wealth may be. True story.
- I am impressed that you were ever within actual walking distance of the magnificent collection of correspondence related to the Constitution's ratification. No, wait that is Minnesota, where is Garrison Keillor when we need him? Wisconsin was the home of Fighting Bob LaFollette, Progressive, one of my all time heroes, along with Humbert H. Humphrey, Democrat from way up around there, whom I met in a Senate elevator as an intern (not well connected enough to be a page). I did get to hear him making the graduation speech for his daughter's high school in DC. Did your studies take you into the lives of either men, or did your studies take you into the world of social history? Joseph (I never call him Joe) Ellis says the utility of social history to political history is akin to taking a lacrosse stick to Fenway Park. Is that true? My roommate in college played inter-collegiate lacrosse, but I really don't know anything about baseball.
- I guess that is all by way of introduction. To the question, What is your source for the assertion, " 'The War between the states' is only used in historical scholarship as a joke." Do Yankees really say, "put up or shut up" as anything but a joke any more? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Humphrey was a Minnesotan (a fine breed of folk, of course). It is impossible to study the history of Wisconsin without dealing with La Follette and his heirs and heritage. I do have the honor of having been a friend and comrade of Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's most recent Socialist mayor, and I have an emeritus professor who remembers Harvard parties when that fellow Lehrer from Mathematics would sing his foolish little ditties. Alas, my own life is that of a humble civil servant.
As to the last query, of course they do. I was merely trying to inquire whether the term is in fact in use other than as a sort of family in-joke, akin to "the late unpleasantness" and all the Sir-Walter-Scott romanticized taradiddle of "Southron this" and "Southron that". I did not mean any discourtesy, nor to disrespect you or your own fields of study; but confess to being rather out of touch with current usages in the Land of Cotton, which I fled in 1977. (I'm literally one generation out of the cotton fields of West Tennessee, and can still hear my momma discoursing on how little fun it is to be dragging one of those bags along behind you as you pick.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. TWBS is meant mostly for the international reader which our data base says comes up with some frequency. It is not meant as a partisan statement in the same way WONA clearly is. With the last paragraph you have achieved scholastic stature in the anonymous internet, in my eyes at least. Anyone who has command of 19th Century Southron literature enough to reference Sir Walter Scott is worthy of serious consideration.
- Part of the national disfunction was that the two sections read disparate literatures, and so framed the world and its events differently. In the North the best seller was 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (about the 1850s moral paragon who laid down his life for his friends NOT the shuffling self-denegrating toady of 1880s black-face minstrel shows - you don't think the name of the character was chosen to a purpose?) -- in the South, Scott's Ivanhoe was the best seller, which, although an improvement as literature to the Scottish pseudo-history that infamously preceded it, was still romanticizing a traditional feudal society which stifled individual potential, development and achievement outside favored lairds and most favored sons.
- This sort of sectional difference in reading is one of the reasons I favor national testing standards from a core of knowledge to be shared nationally in say, literature, making up 50% of the curriculum. I'd like to see a second bloc of state-requirement at 30%, and a third bloc of buffet-family-ethno-cultural requirement at 20%. Include the big minorities, English and English translations only, German, African-American, Irish, Scots, Latin-American, East Asian, South Asian, European, Islamic, Subsaharan ... Can you tell I taught U.S. History and U.S. Government classes in Fairfax, VA? The selection should reflect the cultural diversity of each state, with a % threshold for budget. [so we would see a Portuguese writers unit available in Hawaii and Rhode Island ... not feasible before online-CD resources]
- The problem I have with state-only curriculum, is that in the case of Virginia, to take but one example from one state, the U.S. history standards wer initially written without anyone in the field at any level. All were realtors. So, Bacon's Rebellion and the Populist Era were omitted. Need I go on? Over the last twenty years there have been two revisions, so we got Populists in, but not the Railroad Strike of 1877. I guess getting Debs mentioned in labor along with Gompers, Lewis and Chavez will suffice for now, but I want Philip Randolph added.
- Even as a high school boy thrilling at the romanticism found in required reading - wow, snippets from Shakespeare's Sonnets can work on a date - I was troubled by the illustrations of ivy-covered castle ruins. Ivy roots emit an acid which decomposes mortar. They are a sign of negligence or indolence about working masonry properties. The castles are in ruins because the failed society they symbolize was overrun by the English for good reasons, cultural, social, political. All this is not to misdirect you, I am a great fan of the Scottish Enlightenment, improvability of man as individual and society, though I do not quite imagine perfectibility as one of Eric Hoffer's 'true believers' might aspire to. I mean no discourtesy.
- While I was in graduate school for education-curriculum writing, I had a friend in the history department who had spent successive summers working in fields of tobacco (cigar wrap leaf in Maine!), picking cotton and planting indigo. He said tobacco is easiest except for the harvest hours, cotton is harder because of the never-ending finger cuts that never quite heal, and indigo was the worst because the wet gave his feet a fungus and the bottle? fly bites drew blood all day. I always thought no high school U.S. history course could be complete without a box of bottle flies for students to thrust a hand into for three minutes (extra quiz credit). But alas, I am retired, and there are all kinds of public school restrictions on extra-credit now ... it could be a cross-curriculum project with the biology teachers.
- To "War Between the States", since the phrase is mentioned in the scholarly citations with some frequency ... I will try to dig up that link for you, you can search on any term or phrase over three hundred years and name your year-span ... I thought it important for the international reader to be acquainted with the term since it appears in American scholarship. Otherwise, I'm not much of a 'Moonlight and Magnolias' kind of guy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


United States[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -TFD (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I filed a 3rr report and you may reply here. -TFD (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hypocrite, how dare you[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Puerto Rico".The discussion is about the topic Puerto Rico. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Rico[edit]

Hello my friend,

Thank you for your message. It seems as if we have a lot in common. We are about the same age, served in the military (by the way thank you for service), we love history and writing about military related subjects. I had checked out your user boxes before, very nice.

We may differ in regard to what the political status of Puerto Rico should rightly be, Independent or state as in statehood, however the bottom line is that Puerto Rico's political structure and future all depends on what the United States wants. Nobody tells the boss what to do. It is what the boss wants and is best for him. We are not kids anymore who could be fooled by what we are told or by what we are lead to believe, If our country, the United States, has influenced the politics of foreign nations thru agencies such as the CIA, then what is to keep the US from dealing with the politics of Puerto Rico and it's future?

In regard to the "incorporated" or "unincorporated" issue, I agree that more research into the subject is needed. The problem is that a discussion of this subject may turn political. When a subject becomes "political" or is of a political nature, then it is tough to decide who is right and who is wrong. When it comes to politics and/or religion, everybody is right and everybody is wrong, depending on individual believes. When we cite the so-called reliable sites by scholars and so on, we must be careful as to how reliable they are. Scholars, historians and authors are often biased and influenced by their own personal believes and the times in which they lived. What we need to conclude the issue involved is a copy of an official legal document in which the Government of the United States has made it clear if the island is "incorporated" or "unincorporated".

Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. They will make it easier to "let it go" when the time comes. My guess is that you were an outstanding MP. It seems as though participants in the discussion fear the loss of any reference to "unincorporated", -- when of course Puerto Rico must be "unincorporated" as long as the discriminatory tax regime is enforced on PR where it would be unconstitutional for a state. My guess is stockholders of Puerto Rican sugar interests are not interested in bringing legal suit to change it. politics, as you say.
Regardless, my point seems to be entirely lost, I wish only to present a) there is a controversy as sourced at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and b) one side says "incorporated" as sourced at Boston College Law Review, p.1175.
Because the discussion was begun by an unreasonable IP who wanted to replace "unincorporated" with "incorporated" everywhere, and because the discussion was pushed to DRN before working out the reasonable language I was looking for in consensus, it looks as though my interest in presenting the controversy will fail to be included in the article. And I just can't see bringing it up again for a year without seeming disruptive. Mercy11 already thinks I was the wild-eyed IP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, I told myself "I like this guy, this is someone you can talk to". You see my friend, in this project there are too many people who are uncivil and with whom you cannot have an intellectual discussion or conversation. It is always nice to find someone with whom you can converse. Take care and Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN case closed[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Puerto Rico". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because no volunteer accepted to mediate the case. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! ----Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC) This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.

Puerto Rico Project Talk Page[edit]

I have reinstated your removal of the DRN section at the Puerto Rico project Talk Page since the DRN in question (HERE) was closed just yesterday, making the information too recent to be removed. This is particularly so given that there is now a consequential follow-up RfC on the same issue HERE. I think it is useful information for a newcomer to have the background information accessible to him, and removal would prevent them from just that. I think you will agree that there is a wealth of information and opinions that were presented at the DRN, but which someone new to the discussion may find necessary to access. Yet removal of the link would make that difficult or impossible depending on the user. Most importnatly, the page in question is archived by a bot. I appreciate your understanding. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You duplicated the information for the DRN in your own post, moved the RfC notice out of chronological order, and demoted the RfC which incorporated comments from all sides in the discussion section and at the DRN. I simply removed my own post now duplicating yours. Please read the RfC carefully before you object to it, it incorporates your viewpoint also. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing stamps[edit]

Abraham Lincoln
Issue of 1866

Aye TVH, I see your Civil War stamps page is shaping up. I added a stamp for Andrew Johnson, which was missing. Also, I noticed you have added a section for Abraham Lincoln stamps, but it (and the entire article/draft) is missing the first Lincoln stamp, issued in 1866, one year exactly, after death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole discussion from BHG's talk page, upon her request, has been copied to my talk page as linked above. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment on Talk:Puerto Rico[edit]

Apologies if my comment was misunderstood. I did state, "Thank you all..." - although I can understand that it may have appeared to be directed specifically at you per the threading. You're certainly not the only one guilty of protracting the discussion. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

re: Virginia in the American Civil War[edit]

Hello, VH, thank you for noting the previous editing I had done on that page. Unfortunately my edit was undone arbitrarily in a retardataire manner. Compare my edit with what is currently on that page as well as History of Virginia. This is the old version of my original edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Virginia&oldid=316388037#West_Virginia_split

I have the 1861 list of Virginia voting districts by counties if you are still interested in having it. If so I will add it to this post. Sincerely, Dubyavee (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, please. thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Here are the voting districts, I scanned it rather than type it all out. If you need the citation it is "Ordinances Adopted by the Convention of Virginia at the Adjournd Session, in June and July, 1861", Wyatt M. Elliott, Printers, Richmond, 1861, page 44.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3810/12597476383_f47609d587_b.jpg

I will probably change the WV material on the Virginia pages at some point, but it has been very difficult. There have been a lot of changes in scholarship over the last "75 years", and we need to bring the material up to date. One doesn't use "reliable sources" if the reliable sources are provably wrong, no matter how revered the historian is. Dubyavee (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. it goes into my "Virginia History" notebook.
Not sure how to persuade Rjensen. His objection seems to be one of academic turf wars. Virginia historians do not do West Virginia, so WP 'Virginia ---' should not do West Virginia so much. But if the people in the time called themselves "Virginians", then it seems to me they should be in the Virginia history article to some degree, regardless of how modern academia choses to divide themselves so as to make scholarly disjunctions for their professional purposes. Those are not the purposes of the general reader, nor the history of the people of that time.
On the other hand, I am not proposing that 'West Virginia in the ACW' and 'Virginia in the ACW' be merged, however logical that might be, so I do see something in Rjensen's point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page launch[edit]

Hi TVH, I noticed you havn't created the American Civil War history on stamps page yet. Was just wondering why. Seems you have more than enough sourced content to make the plunge. Are there any issues? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My notifications box says DragonflySixtyseven reviewed the 'ACW on stamps' candidate 9 days ago with a green box checked.
The same editor reviewed the 'History of Virginia on stamps' with a green box checked 14 hours ago.
How do I know if the article is in mainspace? Is that mine to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you don't need the permission of anyone to launch a page in the first place. If any new page has issues they can be fixed. If the page has so many issues where it's nominated for deletion that's another matter, but again, you need no one's permission. Your article is good to go. The above link is red because the page doesn't exist. Click on it, and simply copy and paste your draft into the edit window and hit 'save'. Then add categories, links, etc as needed. After you save, the link will then become blue, just in case you didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article is created as a B class, Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, with the war misspelled. It seems debilitatingly long. Main article: American Civil War is deleted, categories are deleted. The title does not come up on any subject searches, it is so convoluted that the bot cannot suggest any subject links -- not even American Civil War.
I would prefer the title ‘American Civil War on postage stamps’ or 'American Civil War history on stamps' since the stamps used in the war and the stamps commemorating famous Americans and presidents are not explicitly commemorating the Civil War, the article provides the value added recounting the civil war careers of participants pictured on stamps, the stamps give the wp:significance of the biographies to be included in the article.
The story is the American Civil War, including the explicit commemorations of soldiers, sailors and events, -- but that is conceptually only one-third the article subject matter, omitting the stamps of the war and the famous Americans on stamps with Civil War biographies. Do I now just start a new article title with the same text, make the article links, and let a bot delete the orphan? Is there a reason for deleting the tag, main article: American Civil War? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your great effort of creating and building the Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps article.
Gwillhickers (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Amalie (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Perforation and Gumming[edit]

Dear Virginia Historian, Please do not take it amiss that I’d like to suggest that you make a correction in your article on Civil War-related stamps. You say that the first US stamps were produced with perforation and gumming machines. This is not accurate. All US stamps issued between 1847 and 1856 were imperforate, requiring manual cutting; and sheets were likewise gummed by hand. In 1856 or ’57, perforation apparatus (acquired from England) went into use in the US; stamps continued to be gummed by hand until 1880 (see the Wikipedia article on Postage Stamp Gum).

I’m not quite sure how to rewrite the section to ensure accuracy while preserving your point about rapid technological innovation (which the prompt introduction of mechanized perforation within a decade surely exemplifies), and I’m hoping you’ll find the best way. All best, BFolkman — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFolkman (talkcontribs) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm afraid I'm new to the field in a scholarly way, though a collector or enthusiast for over fifty years. Retirement and Wikipedia have given me a new outlet for the hobby interest, most recently a section at U.S. territories on 'Territories on stamps'. I should be able to qualify the statement to align with other sources. Thanks for your contributions, I am happy to be a part of something bigger by collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Dear Virginia Historian, I'm afraid I can't help you--I'm not a Mac user, and I've never tried to upload fair use images. Someone who might be of help, and who has done some editing on your Commemoration piece, is GWillhickers. Hope you're ultimately successful. All best, BFolkman (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I kept hammering at it, found on the mac you can reformat the .tiff file into .jpeg, which is rendered .jpg on the upload wizard. the same image on .jpeg is 20% of the size of the same image with .tiff. That brings them all under 100KB, which I believe is some sort of default limit for the upload wizard. I uploaded 'New Orleans capture', as a fair use for the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thirteenth Amendment (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) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some mo'[edit]

Washington Territory

Minnesota Territory

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been adding new ones to my sandbox before reorganizing... could you help out with Antietam and Vicksburg? I've uploaded two fair use stamps at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps for battles, but I repeatedly fail at Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I've been spending a lot of my editing time on the Thomas Jefferson page, removing unused sources, adding content, citations, clean up, etc. To break the monotony I've been uploading various stamp images and then upgrading the respective stamp images. Anytime you want to see my latest stamp image uploads go to my user page and click on Gallery of uploads in the caption under the stamp image. Will be uploading the Washington Territory and Minnesota Territory images some time today, after I capture, enlarge and tweak the tone and clarity with my trusty ole photo editor, Btw, did you see my message left on the Territories of the United States talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. Yes, but the territories article may not be analogous to the United States, since about a third of the U.S. territories page is charts..., I thought I'd wait to see what the crew there had to say first. I'd still like to launch the U.S. territories on stamps after a little more work.
I've now collected over sixty stamps for the U.S. territories and settlement sandbox, but some resorting is in order, and some narrative needs to be completed. Is there something I can do in my initial uploads to improve quality? I'm going from .tiff to .jpeg to make the files smaller...
At the USPS website, Uses not requiring permission, it advises, fair usage includes, "Noncommercial, educational uses limited to teaching, scholarship, and research. " , -- doesn't Wikipedia qualify? --that the only qualification is that "users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, and include language such as: "© United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.""
I did not know to include the two caveats in my previous upload tries. But I noticed the Luis Marin stamp at Wikimedia Commons was uploaded by someone using the cyrillic alphabet, claiming USPD origin, even though it was issued under the USPS. I did not use that image in my "Puerto Rico on Stamps" new section at "Puerto Rico".
My Togo stamp is being challenged at Wikimedia Commons for deletion [1] -- the Emancipation Proclamation I uploaded for Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps from the National Postal Museum is only 51 years old... I don't think it can stay up, since the French have a limit of 70 years, and I haven't found Togo postal regulations in English. In the old days, I'd just call someone at the Togo Embassy, or email them from work, whether in DC or NYC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've made reference to the USPS site in the attempt to justify 'fair usage', but unfortunately it fell on ultra opinionated ears whose approach to fair use policy was almost robotic. Anyways, I've been going through my stamp collections again, which, aside from stamp albums, consists of cigar boxes and boxes of stamps. Lot's of mixtures I've yet to fully inspect. Here's another territory stamp you might want to use. Indiana Territory. I've been busy today and haven't gotten around to editing and uploading the others stamps yet, but I will shortly. Probably tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
Minnesota Territory
Issue of 1949
Indiana Territory
Issue of 1950
Washington Territory
Issue of 1953
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful. I will switch them out into the article.

I was successful with Antietam battle yesterday, referencing the guideline from the USPS "Fair use exception" for noncommercial purposes... It says, Users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, ... [and use language like] ... © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved., so in the source box, I placed " United States Postal Service®, © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved." On the fourth try, success. But because there is no feedback, I do not know if that was what reviewers were waiting for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: If the stamp was issued before 1978, it came from the U.S. Post Office, not the USPS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We're good. I may have overlooked the second Marquette - explorer stamp, but I've collected almost all related to U.S. territories, settlement, founders and explorers -- the data base of sixty-odd stamps for "U.S. territories on postage stamps" to date is pre-1978.
I held up on any more uploads in U.S. territories project until a routine for fair usage is figured out. In January 1978 there is a Capt. James Cook exploring Hawaii, 2008-20010 Flags of our Nation series have five territory flags: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands... so there is more than the stamps I have in hand to feature later on --- based on the leads in the Scott Specialized Catalogue. There is still a couple day's work for some more narrative and organization to do before launch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I find myself slowly getting back into philately around here. I just uploaded a hi-res image of the Leif Erikson stamp. You can view it at my 'Gallery of Uploads'. Check it out in full view. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts appreciated in Talk:United States[edit]

Hello, I see you have been active today. It would be nice if you contributed any thoughts, concerns or approval to the final proposal for the Cold War section. There were a total of 3 proposals (one initially from me and two alternate from VictorD7) and after a little more discussion we came up with a final draft combining our concerns which is the fourth/last one. There is also the trimming of the Contemporary history section below that. Even though it's already short I still wanted it to conform with the "Big Picture" formula we have agreed on. Me, Victor and Philpill are the only ones who contributed thoughts so far, and even if you just commented that you agree with the proposals, it would look better if more than 2-3 people contributed to give an impression of consensus so I can go ahead with implementation. Cadiomals (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on stamps[edit]

I moved your section in Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico on stamps as it is really more suitable for a topical article and didn't belong where it was. In particular, the stamp images were not fair use for the article subject and would probably have been deleted eventually, whereas they are fair use in a topical article. I expect you will want to expand the new article to include more stamps which could include PR themed stamps from other countries. Have you considered using a gallery rather than a table to display the images? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. stamps were recommended to be placed at Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico by a consensus at Talk:Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States. How are not U.S. stamps commemorating Puerto Rico a part of Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico?
The only other stamps are Spanish colonial stamps jointly issued at Cuba and Puerto Rico during Spanish colonial times, which is less than the scope of the subject article, Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico. Please offer some sort of explanation for arbitrarily removing conceptually half (U.S.) of its "postage stamps and postal history" and leaving half (Spanish) without discussion. Wikipedia has sources showing Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, organized, unincorporated territory of the United States, that is the consensus of scholarship.
I will procede by linking the new article into the Puerto Rico article, but some explanation in the context of the week-long consensus building there would be nice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I admit I was not aware of the discussion but the content is a topical subject, not about modern stamps OF Puerto Rico (for which there are none as you say). That discussion should have taken place in the Philately Project. You are now free to expand the article as much as you like and to include other countries too if you wish. Importantly, the stamps you included under fair use were not under a valid rationale as they are not essential to a discussion of the postage stamps and postal history OF Peurto Rico, they merely illustrate topics ABOUT Puerto Rico and therefore may have been deleted. They are valid fair use on the new article. I would have thought that you would welcome this new article? I put the rationale for the changes here and in the edit summaries. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with just taking it up to the incorporation into the U.S. if that is as far as it goes, but if you want to take it further you need the post incorporation postal history as content as there won't be any PR stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Why yes I am pleased the work is not lost. In some way, there is strictly no postage stamp OF Puerto Rico, only of Spain and of the United States. The place never obtained independence. As a territory it enjoys a population larger than 20 states, even with half of all self-identified "Puerto Ricans" on the mainland --- and it is home to a fierce local pride, as you might have gathered.
Back to philately, I am interested in starting an article, U.S. territories on stamps. It looks at U.S. national boundaries, insular territories, states from states, eastern growth, western growth and explorers, Please give a look-see at User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S.Territories on postage stamps , I would welcome your input. I've been adding free use stamps to Explorer biography articles. Thanks in advance.
January, 1978 there is a commemorative to explorer Captain Cook Issue landing at Hawaii. -- which cannot be admitted anywhere but on a mainspace article page, to my understanding.
On another matter, there is a free use U.S. stamp on Emancipation Proclamation from 1963 which can be used as an alternate at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Less graceful than the Togo stamp, it will serve the purpose in the event the Togo stamp cannot be accepted. Thanks for your patience in any event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, we need more good topical articles here. I will comment in more detail later. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting article. There is unlimited potential for topical articles here of the form "XXXX on stamps" though it is always possible somebody might challenge them as out of scope as not encyclopaedic. Regarding the Captain Cook stamp, if you find out where the original image (looks like an engraving) is from you could argue that it is out of copyright and what they have done with it (changing colour and adding text) doesn't reach the threshold of originality, you could then upload it to Commons on a PD OLD tag. If you argue it is fair use the test is harder, it has to be essential to the article. We generally try to avoid using fair use images where possible. They often are challanged or reduced in size. The images in the PR article are much stronger from the point of view of fair use now, but you may still find somebody challenges them, and indeed we shouldn't fill a whole article with fair use images if the article doesn't need to exist at all which you could argue is the case for any topical stamps article. Regaring the original PR article, there is still plenty to add on the early stamps used there and about old and modern postal history - rates, routes, airmail, postmarks etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move request[edit]

TVH, opinions are needed at Talk:Leif Ericson -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Image upgrades[edit]

Have just uploaded a better version of these stamps:


More to follow...

-- Gwillhickers (talk)

Thanks as always. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stamp description and info[edit]

Hi TVH. Just some advice. Noticed that you've been placing the wrong or inadequate info in the stamp's description page sometimes. Take the File:San Juan 1971 U.S. stamp.1.jpg for example. In the Source field you put Arago: people, postage & the post. but didn't mention the U.S. Post office; In the Author field you put National Postal Museum, which is not the author -- the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is the author, and in this case, the designer, or 'author', is Walter Brooks. When the name of the actual stamp designer is not known, just noting the Bureau' is well enough. Also, while you're doing a great job providing the history behind the stamp, you might want to offer more information about the stamp itself whenever possible. (e.g. issued in sheets of fifty, with an initial printing of 130 million.) Remember, most of your readers will be stamp collectors, and they'd welcome this information as well as the history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fixable right? I could go back onto the stamp page at Wikimedia commons and correct the stamps I mislabeled NPM vs. Bureau of Engraving and Printing?
I have no problem going back and adding to information for the interested reader...I started to note that issues came out in different numbers...and took interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The 55 odd stamps in the U.S. territories on stamps category I uploaded mistakenly have been corrected to show the Bureau as author. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a few of the corrections myself when I upgraded some of the images. Yes, to edit the image info, click on the given image and then click on the Summary section below the image. In the mark up you will see description=, source= and author=, with the information following the equals sign. Just edit the info like you would any other markup and save. Easy stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The best of Wikipedia is collaborative. thanks. Please note the discussion below with Philafrenzy on categorization...I would appreciate any insight. Based on his direction, I propose to launch into a categorization and clean up into subcategories for "History of the United States on stamps" -- I'd also like to put together an exhaustive category of "U.S. trains on stamps" next... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States on stamps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert R. Livingston, Roger Williams and Jason Lee (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) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography project[edit]

So many books to read, so little time...
This user is a participant of WikiProject Bibliographies

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Just add your name along with any personal info you like in the Participants section. Then, if you like, add this markup {{User Bibliographies2}} to your user page which will display the above user box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks interesting, but it may be more than I can handle right now. Good to know it's out there. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Images on Commons[edit]

Just a note to say that there is no need to add your US stamp scans to both Stamps and Stamps of the United States. The later is already a sub category of the former and somebody has to go in and remove them from Stamps. Could you correct the ones you have already done? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a logical idea. It assumes each stamp can go into only one subcategory or that each contributor will know all categories each stamp belongs to at the time of the upload, all subcategories are comprehensively made for all time, and no reader need have access to the entire collection with an alternative category in mind before creating a new category. Unfortunately I just followed the previous pattern of duplication found there. Is the ideal is to dial up a category and see no stamps --- only subcategories? Is there a policy reference to that end at Wikimedia Commons that I can refer to? Is that a Philately project?
I am reluctant to start the universal purge on my own, or initiate the innovative policy on my own contributions alone. But of course I will cease and desist at your request, as you have requested the other offenders and they comply. At the time I thought there was some value added to have a comprehensive survey of the larger category and I believed subcategories were for specialty interests as subsets of the larger category, which is another logical alternative to yours.
In the event the policy is adopted universally at Wikimedia Commons, there should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How would you propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons?
How can each subcategory contributor be encouraged to upload into multiple categories? Obviously the stamp of an explorer of New Jersey not only belongs in the 'U.S. territories on stamps' category, it belongs in the New Jersey category and the Explorer category, neither of which presently exists. But unless the image is in the general category, an editor creating the new category will not have access to all the stamps in the data base to draw from, but each subcategory has to be explored before comprehensively sighting the collection. How does that expedite subcategory formation, in such a way that it is a value added to the researcher, not a wiki-imposed restriction to the researcher? Which way of organizing is more open, which is more artificially closed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is not my idea. It's well established that we don't include images in both a sub category and a parent category unless there is a good reason. There would be 10000 stamp scans in Stamps if we did! There may be exceptions but this is not one of them. Just check how the images are currently organised to verify what I say. There probably is a page saying that on Commons but you just have to think of the alternative to see why it makes sense. It would give 20 million images all in one giant top level category. Why do you think there is so little in top level Stamps already? I haven't moved much out of there. Although the more refined categories do tend to hide material, as you suggest, as long as the structure is logical things can usually be found. Things definitely should be in more than one category but usually that is in parallel category trees just as you suggest with the New Jersey stamp.
You can include a US stamp in US Stamps of X year, X on stamps etc, what we don't do is put it in US stamps and Stamps at the same time. I don't make any of this up as I go along you know, it is all agreed by consensus over the years. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed consensus is the way to go, and that everything cannot be done at every level --- it is inherent in the nature of a collaborative project. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a main category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How should we propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know but it is not a bad idea. There may already be a bot or script running that does fix this. The difficulty is that there are exceptions and if you are going to remove categories you need to be sure and that is a judgement that requires the application of the human brain. Some would argue, I expect, that it is better to educate users not to do it in the first place. Try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Community_portal Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be the rationale for our template.
I have removed the "History of the United States on stamps" and "Stamps of the United States", leaving them in "U.S. territories on stamps" from two contributors uploads, File:00Kamehameha.jpg, File:Alaska territory 1937 U.S. stamp.tiff.
  • The best images from Category:Columbian Exposition Issue representing the issue should be taken out of “history of U.S. on stamps” and placed into U.S. territories on stamps, the duplicates left only on "Columbian Exposition", the remainder (cancelled, blocks) removed form "History of the United States on stamps", correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you remind me how to create a separate category:Territories 1937 Issue for the four related stamps? The Jamestown Exposition deserves like treatment. They would not be a subcategory, but a philately independent category akin to Category:Columbian Exposition Issue.
  • The Wikimedia Commons category "Trains on stamps" does not include a subcategory, so there is no link to add more. the sidebar Tools "special pages" is not applicable. On second thought, my interest is primarily "U.S. trains on stamps" as history, and that would be a subcategory of "History of the United States on stamps", correct? Thanks in advance for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed the categories on the two you mentioned to what I would say are the correct categories. The idea is that each category addresses a different aspect of the image, i.e. it's a stamp of the US from a particular year and also depicts a particular subject and also is printed by a particular printer etc. Each is a separate category tree. None is an immediate sub category of the other (they may be under a common parent category somewhere else). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Galleries vs. Tables[edit]

I forgot to come back to you about this. Check out Help:Gallery tag and the packed mode in use on Underprint. There may not be an ideal solution but your articles are going to get very long if you only include a couple of images per table. Hope this helps. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks promising. The table, also recommended by a collaborating editor, allows larger images as an alternative to what I began using, the double or triple images aligned right and related text left. This is a third alternative to explore. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In cases where there are only two stamp images used in a table or gallery I would simply stack them into a 'double image' which you are familiar with and place them to the right or left. If the sections and text become crowded and sandwiched together simply place the {{clear}} template at the end of the section. If this results with a few lines of white space at the end of the section that's okay. This is better than the sections all crammed together. White space occurs normally in printed media, and rightly so. Of course there are practical limits to everything but a couple of lines of white space won't be an 'issue' with most editors. If some individual should have an issue with 'clear' and it means they expect you to sandwich the sections and text back together, simply invoke the Ignore all rules policy since you are improving the format and readability of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on Stamps[edit]

Somebody has removed your non-free images, I assume because either they thought they were not essential to the article or there was no critical commentary about them. I think I warned you that these images were vulnerable to this sort of criticism though I must say I thought you would be fairly safe in that article. You could revert the deletion and argue that the images are essential because you discuss them in the article. As I have said, we really should be avoiding copyright images if at all possible. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Puerto Rico on stamps, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All persons pictured are dead. Vandalism is frowned upon at Wikipedia. desist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't revert it again. You will get blocked. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Vandals should be reported of course. I've never done that before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not vandalism though I understand why it seems that way to you. Read my message further up. Non-free (copyrighted) images are always a problem as all our content is supposed to be available for any sort of reuse and copyrighted materials don't fit with that mission. I have had several of mine deleted for the same reason. Put a message on the user's talk page that you wish to discuss the matter. Generally, if I were you, I would try to use only out of copyright images or you will face this sort of battle all the time. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the sort of battle vandals always present, unreasoned, unsourced disruption of the purpose of the article. All persons pictured are dead. Puerto Rico on stamps pictures Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans on stamps. The copyrighted materials meet the standards of fair use on Wikipedia, although not Wikimedia Commons, that is what the template at Wikipedia explains at the stamp upload, a template not available at Wikimedia Commons. I suppose there could just be good faith confusion on the part of Werieth. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, read WP:NPA. Fair use means nothing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a far more strict policy on non-free media WP:NFCC. If you continue to abuse non-free media I will take this to ANI and request that you be blocked unit you demonstrate that you understand our policy on non-free content. If you want to discuss this we can do that either here or on the article talk page, but the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
VirginiaHistorian: you need to talk about the image in detail in order to justify including it as a copyright image. If you expand the text in this way you could then try adding them back. It's not enough just to give basic details of the stamp and what is on it. It needs critical or evaluative discussion of the image. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And that needs to be sourced critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was, otherwise you could use free stamps to illustrate the article instead. Werieth (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Commentary to be forthcoming. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States after 1978 and that is shown in part by Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans pictured on USPS stamps since 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what ping and ping again means. Is there an example of USPS licensing appropriately used at Wikipedia? Something that shows critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was.
There are stamps after 1978 which show Puerto Rican U.S. citizens to be a part of the United States in politics, baseball, literature and acting. They are honored in great American issues since 1978. Puerto Ricans voted in referendum to be admitted as a state, and the territorial legislature has applied for statehood. They are Americans.
The flags of the territories are featured in "Flags of our nation", meaning U.S. citizens in territories are honored by Joint Resolution of Congress picturing their flags in precisely the same way as citizens in states are pictured. They are not inferior, their territorial representation in Congress has more privileges attached than the territorial representation of the 19th century for places which subsequently became states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted image deletions[edit]

TVH, I would recommend restoring the above images to their respective articles so they are not orphaned and eligible for deletion on that technicality and as I've said restore them as much as needed if deleted again. It's time to be bold. This all out assault on NFC stamp images is ridiculous, unwarranted and even malicious. Again, no one's interests have been compromised. THIS is the primary reason why there are fair use guidelines i.e.to protect WP legally and to not compromise the copyright holder's interest, and this has not occurred, because as you know, USPS allows their images to be used, per the discussions. Also, no one has articulated any actual policy violation regarding opinions on critical commentary. Altogether no one has cited any clear cut fair use violation, and all the criticism mostly lends it self to critical commentary, which is easily dealt with if it has to be. See my last post. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And Ill note such actions are likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing and violating WP:NFCC. Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy, several users myself and at least one other person familiar with stamps have provided guidance on how you need to proceed. Re-adding the files without providing sourced third party critical commentary and asserting the importance of the specific stamps will not end well for you. If you want to start making progress and stop going around in circles Ill be glad to ensure that you are going in the correct direction. Werieth (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me. Kindly refrain from lies and slander here at Wikipedia. I have no dislike for policy and have repeatedly made reference to it to justify the inclusion of the images that have been unduly deleted without any discussion first. You have misrepresented the policy entirely and on that basis have been disruptive, not to mention dishonest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Its not lies or slander. How is File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg critical to the understanding of Puerto Rico on stamps when the only reference is Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010 ? That comes no where close to meeting the fairly high bar for inclusion of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Werieth, above, in full view of your response you said: Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy. Again, you try to substitute opinion not only for policy but for facts. Again, kindly refrain from asserting lies and slander and confine your comments to rational discussion. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you failed to understand policy doesnt mean that I am misrepresenting it, being dishonest or disruptive. Kindly remember WP:NPA further attacks will be escalated. Werieth (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are misrepresenting the policy which would permit USPS fair use licensed images in topical articles. You insist by your own interests, a POV that there be only single stamp articles, where the stamps alone by themselves are significant. A topical article takes a significant topic and explores the multiple commemoratives a society has deemed notable and for what reasons. These are not to be dismissed as collections of stamps in the chronological sequence of their issue, without topical focus and analysis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Topical articles[edit]

@Werieth, the commentary available at the Smithsonian Institute's National Postal Museum has been my primary source of critical analysis of each stamp. The analysis in my three authored pieces exceeded those of any other Wikipedia article noted USPS fair use license to date. I have extended the commentary from USPS source on a stamp at Puerto Rico on stamps for Julia de Burgos, a famous Puerto Rican poet and author celebrated as an American citizen as all Puerto Ricans are by birth. Government sources on government affairs are widely used at Wikipedia. The importance of the specific stamps is their expression of important cultural icons, defined by Joint Resolution of Congress to initiate the commemoration object of the stamps.
I am happy to follow your guidance in the case of Julia de Burgos and with others as time permits. This is important enhancement of the article from its stub beginnings, which I am committed to do. But again, I note the commentary on each of the three articles I contributed to is greater in total and more for each stamp than is found elsewhere on Wikipedia for USPS licensed images. Again, I believe I could profit from additional examples of USPS fair use images used in WP articles. But removing images from the best examples of commentary and context available to date seems disruptive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure we are on the same page, WP:NFCI. "Acceptable use. The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Images. Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content.,, 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it."
In the article Puerto Rico on stamps the USPS commemorated the Puerto Rican poet Julia de Burgos on a postage stamp. The USPS fair use license applies to an image of the commemorative on Julia de Burgos identifying the stamp. It is not for the purposes of the biographical article Julia de Burgos depicting Ms. Burgos. If the image of the postage stamp depicted an ink well to represent the poet, the image of the entire postage stamp would still be used because it meets the NFCI standard #3 for non-free image use on Wikipedia, "For identification of the stamp or currency". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That particular example that you cite, and have already been told, applies to the usage of the stamp in the article about the stamp. What the USPS says or doesnt say about the usage of their files means very little beyond the fact that the files are either under a free or non-free license. In this case its a non-free license. The usage of the USPS and National Postal Museum are primary sources, and as such cannot really be used to provide critical commentary. Critical commentary comes from independent reliable third party sources. Also Ill note that if a particular stamp isnt notable enough for its own article what makes it critical to the understanding of the meta article? Werieth (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Werieth, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, so here also, you are misrepresenting affairs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp proves you wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Breast cancer research stamp has text on the stamp equivalent to that now provided for Julia de Burgos at Puerto Rico on stamps. The rest is about cancer research, where the stamp surplus money goes, not about the stamp. That is, the commentary for Julia de Burgos meets the standard set for stamp commentary found in Breast cancer research stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know of such a page. TVH, perhaps this is taking it to the limit, I don't know for sure. Is the stamp in of itself notable enough to warrant its own article? Have more people admired and purchased this stamp then have people who have bought a given video game for which there is an article for? Every time the USPS comes out with a stamp, many millions of people across the country buy it. Can this be said for all the video games for which there are articles for? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that TVH had created the page, which has been around since 2007 with no issues of the type we typically see from MASEM and company. Wonder why they haven't attacked this stamp, and page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You completely missed my point here and everywhere else. I never said the Breast cancer research stamp page is bad. In fact, that's a great use of a stamp where the stamp itself is clearly notable (not so much for its art but fore what the stamp was made for, to promote breast cancer research and return funds back to that). The stamp clearly passed WP:N, and per clearly meeting NFCI#3, using the non-free stamp to identify the stamp is fine. And whil e the de Burgos stamp itself is not notable, the text added that talks about how the illustration of the stamp alludes to her poetry is at least sufficient to assume on good faith that NFCC#8 is met. Note that "millions of people use the stamp" is not a measure of notability per WP:N, so most stamps and stamp series are not notable, though topical articles are reasonable. And you need to drop the stick about video games or personally attacking my own interests. WP is not paper so we can cover any topic that is notable, and we have to consider the use of non-free media across all topics equally. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

  • In response to my mistaken claim, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, you pointed out the page in question -- with one haughty sentence. You didn't go on to make any point. Once again, you misrepresent affairs. Yes, the stamp is notable, and so are most others that commemorate famous people, statehood, etc. Thank you. It is only your opinion that a given stamp may not be as notable, -- and who's yard stick are we using before an image is deleted and/or nominated for deletion on that basis? Yours? You have clearly demonstrated why we need to have a consensus to decide these matters, and not from the usual tag team that spends the bulk of their time trolling around hounding editors on the basis of an opinion about 'notability', critical commentary', etc. These are all ideas that need to be established by an objective consensus when some individual feels it's so bloody urgent to have the image deleted on the spot. --

NPM as third party[edit]

You have already been told -- is not a very collegial turn of phrase. The National Postal Museum is of the Smithsonian Institute. --- The policy applies to all articles, not just the articles of your interest. Topical articles are allowed, just as there are articles on individuals, there are articles on events made up of individuals. It may be that you are only interested in individuals in the Civil War, but the encyclopedia still has an article on the Civil War apart from the individuals. (But all good history is biography in a way.) --- In any case, there are articles about individual stamps, there are articles about topics on stamps, and both may use images of stamps by USPS fair use license according to the plain meaning of the WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The National Postal Museum is a joint venture between the Smithsonian and USPS, which means that they are not a reliable third party source. I have never said that the meta articles are forbidden, in fact I actually have given advice on how to retain a limited number of non-free media in these articles (1-3 images instead of the previous 6). Justification for inclusion of non-free media is fairly high. In this case you are quoting a NFCI phrase outside of context. As it says just a few lines above, all files must meet all points of WP:NFCC in this case that hasnt happened. Werieth, (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Insert : , Werieth, The National Postal Museum is indeed a third party. They are not the ones who designed and printed the stamps, and the organization is staffed by many learned historians and stamp collectors who provide information under the well recognized heading of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Postal Museum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:NFCC in these articles is met more completely and comprehensively than any USPS licensed article example we have before us. Your advice has been followed, as time allows in trying to preserve the orphans you have created without prior discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not advice, its policy and I have cited two articles that have far more justification than any that you have made so far. USPS licensing is meaningless, the files are non-free and are treated as such. NFCC is no where near being met in any of the articles. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you find an article in Wikipedia where you believe it to be so, USPS fair use license appropriately used? You have cited Inverted Jenny which is USPD free use, and an article without an image with less context and analysis than my three contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Breast cancer research stamp is one example that I have already pointed to. Again critical commentary is more than bare facts from the USPS or their museum, it requires third party discussion to be considered critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If there were an article on "Causes on stamps", it would have the essential information of the introduction in the article Breast cancer research stamp, and a link to the more in-depth article for that stamp, and a similarly more abbreviated description and analysis for the other stamps in the topic article. The standard for the topic article will be less than that of an individual stamp article, just as the information on individuals at American Civil War will be less than that of an individual's biography article.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The NPM is a WP:reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Smithsonian Institute affiliation with USPS does not taint it any more than does government grants to Harvard taint the Harvard Business Review as a source. In any case government sources are admitted as reliable sources at Wikipedia. You misrepresent WP:reliable source to suit your own POV against topical philately articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp[edit]

It is a well done article. Is it yours? That's what I would like to grow to as an editor, to be able to command that kind of depth with some facility one day. If I can keep this dispute from getting personal, after a dispute resolution or two which I believe we need to have now for clarification sake, I'll beef up the articles and then reimport the images without disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats not my article. Feel free to "Beef up" the articles and provide more information and justification, but before you re-add the files let me know. Ill take a look and give some feedback. One other angle you can look into and see if there is enough material is how the portraile of PR has changed over time on stamps. If you can provide enough critical commentary and justification I don't see an issue with the article eventually containing 1-3 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So one of the items for dispute resolution would be the interpretation about what "limited" can mean. Limited picturing of a stamp issue series, limited as a proportion of free use stamp images in the article. It seems you would have it limited to a few stamps per article, regardless of the scope of USPS stamps on the subject (five territory flags of 55 issue), or regardless of how limited the topic is within each USPS issue (four battles of 30-odd Civil War commemorative stamps). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

test ping[edit]

@ @TheVirginiaHistorian: This is a test. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you can ping yourself. Werieth (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Werieth: Thanks. Did it work? Seems the courteous thing to do, especially at an insert during an extended discussion. I notice also that the @ sign is generated with the template, so another one is redundant. Just another dimension to the hobby here. Thanks (blush). And I am going to add the links to the USPS or Arago pages for stamps which cannot get fair use license images. as you suggested....sometimes NPM only features a stamp as "Scott catalogue" without any description, rats...
On another matter, how do I set up a new Wikimedia Commons Category, 'Trans-Mississippi Exposition Issue' so I have a place for the mint stamp images available for upload from NPM? What is there now, in the gallery 'Stamps of the United States', seems what was available from the uploader's private collection, and I would like to provide uploads of complete sets for Jamestown Exposition, Louisiana Purchase Exposition, etc... in one searchable place for each series. Do you have any suggestions for naming conventions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah the ping worked, I am not familiar enough with stamps to give good advice on the naming, but I would include the year, series and stamp name in some manor. Werieth (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Sources. In cases where the NPS doesn't offer sourcing info for a given stamp there is, as you know, Scott's Stamp catalog, and better still Scott's Specialized catalog. There is also Mystic Stamps' free catalog, issued I believe twice a year. It often has lot's of info on various stamps. Notable stamp collector/historian Bob Allen's 1847USA web site also offers basic reliable sourcing for a lot of issues. New issues I suspect will be more of a challenge. Happy hunting. I'll keep an eye peeled also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page[edit]

TVH, I realize that a lot of the debate about NFC, stamps, etc, has found its way here. If you feel a given debate is better served on a different talk page, you could simply cut/paste the discussion to a more appropriate location and leave a note/link to that effect here. At least I won't object. Hope we are not crowding you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The gist seems to be narrowing down to fair use in the topical pages. Four observations seem to work in concert: a. Stamps are widely circulated public media, descriptions of them can be derived from governmental (USPS) and foundation (Smithsonian Institute) sources. b. They are notable culturally by dint of their genesis through a Congressional Joint Resolution, and
c., if a stamp image is used as content under the heading of a greater subject, e.g.Puerto Rico on stamps, it doesn't necessarily have to be notable in its own right: Notablility : The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. The stamp doesn't have to be notable by itself to be used in an article, and has no bearing on NFCC to begin with.
d. Visual information is processed differently than textual information, they are not equivalent, "a picture is worth a thousand words". In the case of an topical article titled "[subject] on stamps", the primary information to be conveyed is based on visual acquisition of images of the entire stamps. Textual description alone is neither equivalent nor sufficient for the purpose of the topical philately article.
It may be useful to make a cogent restatement of the argument and start a new subsection at WP:Media copyright questions, perhaps, with a non-provocative header to get away from the procedural issues. "Topical articles and USPS fair use".
But the issue of critical commentary remains to be fully answered, it seems fame or adverse notoriety is misunderstood as analysis. And analysis of the event pictured is dismissed out of hand, leaving the art critique as the sole standard. How to explain there are forests as topics as well as trees as stamps?
e. But the topical article takes the focus out of the image itself and into the context of the person or event pictured. That is, the critical commentary of a Keegan on the American Civil War battle is as applicable for the context in the topical article as that of an art curator's analysis of the art reproduced on the stamp commemorating the Battle of Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that the stamp is notable (not that it always must be, per notability of content) simply because it is a U.S. postage stamp. Like currency, it is in public circulation. Many people ask for the specific commemorative stamp when at the P.O.. Re:Critical commentary. Certain individuals need to stop treating this like rocket science. As I maintained before, all that need be said is that e.g. 'A given person' was noted for 'this deed and that' and was honored with a commemorative stamp on a given date or anniversary. If you can add more to that, this is fine, but not required. Unless the critical commentary is completely off topic or missing altogether, opting to delete these images on such opinionated basis should been done with discussion and consensus beforehand. Deleting such images in such an arrogant and self-appointed fashion has created nothing but animosity among many dozens of editors trying to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
see wp:Non-free content review#USPS template new subsection, WMF mission. Coat of Many Colours has another take on educational mission, countered by Masem. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States[edit]

So you have no opinion on any of the proposed image changes/removals? I know you know it's there but you have yet to contribute your input. You might not have a vested interest in any of the images and you might not want to dive in to the crap-show of a discussion there but if you could just quickly contribute your opinion to them (what should stay, what should/should not be changed) it would be appreciated since the more editors give their input the faster we will come to some sort of consensus on at least some images, and the faster we can move on from those issues. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Looking for an appropriate barnstar I instead found this page.

BoNM USA Hires.png The USA Barnstar of National Merit
Louisiana Purchase7 1903 Issue-10c-crop.jpg
For your enduring efforts in creating, building and composing the Territories of the United States on stamps article.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a lead from your airmail contribution, and added statehood airmails for Alaska and Hawaii. With Arago links for the original 13 ratifiers to the Constitution and Utah statehood, (Utah does have a territory commemorative), all 50 states and five territories (links) are accounted for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)/Archives/
minkeepthreads=4 minarchthreads=1 format= Y/F

}}

Another One...[edit]

Thank God I found another unreconstructed Southerner in this den of Politically Correct liberal wackos.Avazina —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Well, I'm not exactly "unreconstructed" in the sense of refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the United States Government. I served active duty as a United States Marine Corps officer. I am at the service of the US President at his discretion for the rest of my life according to the laws of my country; I take my oath seriously. -- TVH
What you may read between the lines are the echos of my Virginia family. I have a cultural affinity for consensus versus the confrontational. I've read enough and lived long enough to know there lots of sides to a story, and I for one want to know more of them.
For instance, it has only been over the last ten years or so that I read enough 'unit histories' to know that NO Confederate diary says, 'tomorrow I know I will die. the richest slave-holding man in the county will be richer when this is all over.' It is true that the Civil War was about slavery in a macro economic and nationally political sense. But it does not explain why men fought on. 'Tomorrow I know I will die. When Joe gets home, he will take care of you and the children.' That is a different reality, a different history. If we write a narrative with one eye on the Confederate soldier, even as we look at charts of GNP, and respect the runaway slave in Union blue, we will have a different tone, a different voice. - TVH

Image tagging for File:670px-Flag of Virginia svg.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:670px-Flag of Virginia svg.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages:* Wikipedia:Image use policy* Wikipedia:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

aaaaarrrrrgggg I was in a sandbox, its from Wiki Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg . I last left this in punch cards and (no suffix) FORTRAN. Bill Gates made everything too user-friendly. Curses, Bill. - TVH.
This is one of the reasons I hate bots on Wikipedia.... they don't have any sort of human emotion or reason behind what they do other than their pre-programmed instructions. That certainly isn't friendly to new users like yourself.
I have nominated this file for "speedy deletion" as it duplicates existing content on Wikipedia. If you need some help in terms of how to use Wikipedia, I would certainly be willing to help you out. I cut my programming teeth on punch tape, cards, and programming in COBOL and FORTRAN, so I do know where you are coming from here. The Wikipedia community is a bit bewildering with a bunch of youngsters that seem to be in charge. To let you know, there are also a few of us here that are a bit older too that try to keep these young ones in shape and to keep their hormones under control. I'm not always successful but I sometimes do make a difference. You can too.
I hope this doesn't discourage you from further contributions to Wikipedia. If you stick with it, the contributions you can make here are very satisfying and impact far more people than you could possibly imagine. You will also get to meet some very interesting people in the process of contributing here. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee's at-large congressional district[edit]

Do you have a copy of the Martis book? I don't, but I've seen it and I know it's a great resource. If you do have it, can you check something for us: when did Tennessee's at-large congressional district have six seats? I'm not sure about 1813-1823. Can you confirm if these seats were at-large or by district. Thanks.—Markles 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

yes...I'll try to get back to you tomorrow with the look-up.
There is a copy in lots of county libraries, and community college media centers. I believe that it is on enough 'recommended' lists, even though it is out of print, that if yours does not have a copy, you can probably ask for a to be procured (used) by the one nearest you and they might just use their shrinking funds to get one...my county library accepts emails for requests...as one of my bosses in finance once said, 'If you don't ask, you don't get kissed.'...
  • I have shamelessly asked for monographs that I could not possibly have afforded myself and they have come through for me, 2-4 volumes a year...basically if it is reviewed by an history journal, the New York Times Book Review and the Washington Post, my county buys it for me, and deposits it in the branch nearest my home. It's my birthday four times a year. -TVH.

Tennessee at-large answer[edit]

Martis distinguishes four kinds of election methods in the states (Introduction Section 2, p.6-7 and Section p.59)

(1) Single Member Districts are denoted with a number in their geographic outline, such as 1, 2, 3.
(2) Plural Congressional Districts are artificially divided into subsections geographically, and labeled such as 6a, 6b, 6c.
(3) General Ticket Districts are state-wide slates of a single party tickets. Representative districts are labeled ‘GT’, state maps show diagonals with A, B, C etc as a place-holder on the map for each seat. The largest number of votes for a party seats the entire ticket.
(4) At-Large Districts are state-wide elections of individual candidates, labeled ‘AL’ within the state boundaries. If there are three seats to fill, the three candidates with the most votes state-wide are elected.

He notes that General Ticket districts had the political effect to “ensure election of an entire state delegation by one dominant party”. At-Large districts were mostly used in the Congress following reapportionment, where they might give advantage to a dominant party, or not disrupt incumbents by mutual agreement.

Tennessee had three General Ticket districts in the 8th Congress, 1803-1805, as did NH, CT, RI, NJ and GA.
There were six TN representatives in the apportionment for the 13th Congress, 1813-1815, all Single Member Districts; although there is still territory in grey, which I know to be Cherokee lands in the southeast along the Georgia border, but I do not know of the others.

Tennessee will continue with single member districts for the subsequent Congresses. The 43rd had a tenth district At-Large.

I did find that in the 73d Congress of 1933-1935, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri used General Ticket Districting. (Not Tennessee.)
This was right about the time of the transfer of control in the Democratic Party from the Martin organization to the Byrd organization (No, sir, we don’t say ‘machine’ in the Old Dominion). Minnesota also had General Ticket Districting, but somehow ended up electing Representatives from three different parties. Missouri’s Tom Pendergast was expanding out of the family base in Kansas City to win statewide and federal elections... –TVH TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

link to Commons gallery[edit]

You may enjoy my ACW gallery at Commons. smile
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

April Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The April 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.

 

Secession in the United States[edit]

Since I have deferred to your judgment and you hold my proxy, you should be aware that another editor is falsifying sources. The sources either do not support the statements, or only in the most trivial way. E.g., see footnotes 15 and 16. One could find other examples of plagiarism, and past complaints, if so inclined. The captioned page is in your capable hands. I have enjoyed working with you.74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry the discussion moved, so quickly. I will look forward to your future postings when you find the time. Enjoy your time with your family. With highest regards from a descendant of the Pendletons,74.192.7.135 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The May 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) 02:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The June 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) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski[edit]

Hi, I've left comments on this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. regards Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The July 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) 14:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The September 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) 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
TVH is a major contributor to the excellence of the United States Constitution article. Through a series of carefully crafted tweaks and major edits, the article is moving forward to (once again) receive a well-deserved WP:FA designation thanks to TheVirginiaHistorian's efforts. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a slice of pie.[edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg For your excellent work on the Constitution of the United States. Well done. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee[edit]

Thanks for your comments re the restored pictures. Their deletion appears to have been a bit of thoughtless vandalism of the drive-by variety and nothing more has been said. Your tidying up of sections of the text itself has made a significant improvement to the article. Regards Buistr (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there TheVirginiaHistorian, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:TheVirginiaHistorian.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The :File:03-rawls-225.jpg | image was taken directly from Rawls WP article. Its a shame the download turns out to be non-free. The photographer stood philosopher John Rawls in the same pose as Machiavelli's famous portrait. Striking. Could it be only a format error that the bot did not pick up? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Retracing my steps, I found the image description clearly marked with a big red C. I missed it in my narrowed frame which I set up on my desktop to expedite copying image file names. The editor uploading the image still has not identified the copyrighted source, and I still will not be able to use that image from that source on my User page. rats. This case is similar to that of several prominent academics.
(a) When can editors download newspaper photos of publicly prominent personae by fair usage? (b) Are the photos of faculty, available online at university websites, or in out-of-date university publications online, fair usage at Wikipedia sites? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
stumbling through linked related articles, such as Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain, I don't see publishing for indiscriminately distributed consumption as a qualifying for fair usage anywhere. Help. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:03-rawls-225.jpg is correctly marked as non-free; the source page here has a copyright notice at the bottom. So under Wikipedia's rules, it can be used in the John Rawls article provided that the paperwork is filled in on the file page, but it cannot be used anywhere else. So, I'm afraid, the bot was correct in removing it from your user page. See Wikipedia:NFCC#9. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good. My second posting is correct. Check the box. Per the third posting, I need help. (a) When can editors download newspaper photos of publicly prominent personae by fair usage? (b) Are the photos of faculty, available online at university websites, or in out-of-date university publications online, fair usage at Wikipedia sites? This is a tough one, beyond my first twenty minute search. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

a) We can hardly ever use non-free pictures from anywhere - whether it is from a newspaper or not. Unless a specific newspaper picture is somehow 'free' (e.g. very old, so public domain) then very tight criteria exist for its use. In particular, we cannot use it if a free equivalent is available, or could be created - which rules out almost all pictures of living people (because we could go take their photo). Rare exceptions are made when the photo itself is somehow "special" - of historical significance - e.g. tank man or Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Also it must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". For more on that, see WP:NONFREE and for any specific case, just ask on WP:MCQ.
b) As above; which means, if the building still exists, then no (because we could take a new picture of it). If it's been knocked down or changed significantly, then there is some chance we might be able to use it. Again, in specific cases, it'd be best to ask on WP:MCQ.
Copyright is an enormously complicated thing, but the primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide free content for unlimited distribution; each non-free image reduces that possibility, so we do need to take great care about it. Hope that helps. Use a fresh {{helpme}} for any follow-up / other questions. Thanks. Chzz  ►  15:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. the rules are the rules. or politics ain't beanbag. or something. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee ii[edit]

Thank you for your reasonable comments on Robert E. Lee's talk page regarding his wife's daguerreotype. It's good to know that there are Wikipedians who have knowledge of the subject. For a second I thought that Lee's article was a no man's land. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an article about Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias on the FAC right now. He has certain similarities with Lee's life (if we ignore some big differences). I've learned one thing when writing articles: keep the sections short and make every picture be important. Lee's article is overy detailed and seems to be a collection of different views of several editors. In sum, it's a mess. I tried to share some thoughts on Confederate States of America and tried to suggest editors to take a look at another article I wrote: Empire of Brazil. No one bothered and that article is equally a mess. And that's unfortunate since both articles have enough space to evolve into possible FAs. --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Do you know who are the main contributors to Robert E. Lee's article? Are they still active? Is there any editor there who usually behaves like a troublemaker? I'm asking you all this is because I'm seriously thinking of taking the article to FA level. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I only began participating in RELee to add something to his early Confederate career. I had expanded Battle of Fort Pulaski to Good Article, and found in research there that the contemporary 1862 newspapers and later Lost Cause memoir wars had the history very wrong. Much Confederate military activity is reported only in the Navy Records ... long story. Amazingly, Lee and Olmstead and Tattnall all performed efficiently, credibly and honorably in their own estimation, in the eyes of their comrades, and by the judgment of their opponents, both at the time and thereafter, regardless of the surrounding hysteria found in belles lettres. So I then contributed a paragraph or two to the RELee article.
My most recent reading into the Civil War is Joseph T. Glatthaar's "General Lee's Army: from victory to collapse" ISBN 978-0-684-82787-2. Most of the volume can enhance the Army of Northern Virginia article. For the Lee article, Glatthaar brings important scholarly insight into Lee as a commander of men encamped, on the march and in combat. He taught at the U.S. Army War College, Army Command and General Staff College, USMA, West Point, and the University of Houston. At book publishing, 2008, he was chair of Curriculum of Peace, War and Defense, UNC, Chapel Hill.
From everything I've read, RE Lee is worthy of a Featured Article. I would like to help out some, though as an oldie-newbie I have a double handicap. My most recent contributions are to the U.S. Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. If I were to write the article, I would not waiste any time detailing his strategies or how he won battles. This is one good mistake I often find on articles about U.S. Civil War military leaders. In the end, the article becomes huge, unreadable and a mess. I'll leave open to anyone who has the interest and desire to create and expand an article like "Military career of Robert E. Lee" or similar. Since I'm Brazilian and I'm not tainted by U.S. Civil War prejudices commonly found on Americans (which is something quite common in any controversial historical subject) I believe I'd be able to write something neutral, that will allow readers to see Lee as a man: a highly capable field commander, honourable, owner of slaves, etc... I'd still like to see you review the article once it's finish and share your thoughts so that it can be further improved. I will use three books as the main sources:
Lee (an Abridgment of 4 Volume Set in 1 volume), by Douglas Southall Freeman
Robert E. Lee: A Biography, by Emory M. Thomas
Robert E. Lee: An Album, by Emory M. Thomas (I'll use to add good photos to the article)
I won't be able to start working on it right now. Probably in January or February, but I'd still like to see you giving your imput. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Constitution[edit]

Part A
  1. The quotes should NOT be curly. The minus sign in my edit summaries means "remove".
  2. Not my place to say, though I would personally prefer to avoid such abbreviations.
Part B

(b) See WP:LQ.

--Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 7 December 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) 02:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In United States Constitution, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Convention (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) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution suggestions[edit]

Two suggestions: 1. I think citation 170 fits better in the abc note section. 2. You might use the {rp} method of citation rather than the short citations. (Here is a page that explains: Template:Rp.) --S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, pretty soon (ie maybe Tuesday?) I will work on the history section of United States Constitution as per talk page. Just letting you know. If you would like to work on it yourself, please go ahead, otherwise Tuesday I will have a go at it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the point of the history section edit that you propose is to take material with more-than-summary detail and move it to more narrowly focused articles. The intended result would make the "U.S. Constitution" article the center of a web of related subtopics.
If this understanding is correct, yes, of course, please lead on. I'd like to follow behind you just as soon as I learn how to do it properly myself. I'd like to shadow your first few efforts, then join in, if you would check behind me.
My resistance to editing on the U.S. Constitution page has been to capricious blanking my stuff with no discussion, citation or rationale. Also, I did not understand article overall word-length and memory-size restrictions. These made sense to me as soon as I found the applicable WP reference.
As you may see from my recent "Introduction" edits, I believe that there is very much more to do of substance to improve the article, besides the History section length, once it is short enough for a wide range of readers to load it on their computers in the first place ! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited History of the United States Constitution, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Johnson and Gordon Wood (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) 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Work on US Constitution & related articles[edit]

Human Rights Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Liberty
For excellent contributions on United States Constitution and related articles. Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Excellent work!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Confederate States of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Chattanooga (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) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 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) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

re CSA map[edit]

First of all, thanks for the kind comments, though it really does need some work. It's old and there's a handful of factual errors, though the broad strokes are all accurate. As for why it takes two clicks - to minimize memory usage (on the server to generate thumbnails) and bandwidth (on clients to minimize download time), animated images larger than a certain size don't get animated thumbnails, and this image easily falls above that limit. That's why you don't see it animated in an article, nor in the image page, because that is thumbnailed as well. Only when clicking through to the full version do you get it animated. Your message has reminded me that I should probably work on this more, and make an article for it along the lines of my Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of the United States articles, so hopefully in a few weeks all you'll have to do is link to that. It wouldn't hurt to create my own thumbnailed animation as well, omitting details and much of the text. Huh, that's a good idea actually... for a thumbnail you don't need the names in the states, just an explanation of what's happening. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA Virginia/WV edits[edit]

Hi, I looked at your edit and tweaked it a bit, changing "August" to "June". August was when the WV statehood ordinance was passed, and changed "delegates" to voters since it was the May 23 referendum on the ordinance of secession. I haven't looked at the History of Virginia yet, I was going to redo that and the Virginia in the American Civil War sections on West Virginia because they are quite frankly inaccurate in the extreme. For instance, very few people realize of West Virginia's 49 delegates to the Richmond secession convention, while generally voting against the ordinance on April 17, 29 signed the ordinance. You can see the results on the Library of Virginia website here How Virginia Delegates Voted and Signed the Ordinance. Thanks for your help. Dubyavee (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and Exactly. The sense of community existed even in division, a notion of comity which is lost on 21st Century politicos generally. "The War of Brothers" was as real in Virginia as it was in the more celebrated divisions among Tennessee. CS General Lee's cousin US Admiral Lee commanded the South Atlantic Union blockade, just for starters. It is hard to comprehend the depth of that American tragedy, but I take exception to triumphalism on either side. I think that the tone of historical treatment ought to approximate Grant's Memoirs that were co-written with Mark Twain. These were perilous times, serious men undertaking serious enterprise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) JimWae is going to kill me for being overwrought. Thank goodness for collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

re[edit]

I'm on vacation all this week, and online mostly through a phone. So while I've done some minor minor editing, I haven't checked in to the in-depth discussion that popped up about the map. That's why ice been quiet on any new talk :) I will be able to check by Sunday at the latest. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski[edit]

I noticed that you did a good job with this article. Do you think that this is ready for GA-class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.15.202 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. yes. I'm not sure of the process, and I know there is some sort of review process that will help strengthen stylistic and technical aspects.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The GA-nomination page is here; more info on the military history assessment is on this page. You can probably also find help at the Military history project. Hope this helps. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"The War Between The States"?[edit]

Really? Have you ever heard anybody but a Southron use it? Even in the South it's got that stale tone of secesh irredentism to it; and in 35 years in Wisconsin, including studies that led to a B.A. in History magna cum laude with a specialty in 19th- and 20th-century U.S. history, I've never heard anybody use it as anything but a joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

- Scholasticism does not impress. From the age of 12 I have been fencing with PhD-LLDs who were professors-emeritus (that's Latin to you), widely and repeatedly published and acknowledged intellectual leaders of scholarly schools such as the Lost Cause and 20th Century social movements, including Virginia's Massive Resistance. Fundamental misunderstanding and scholastic mis-orientation is not compensated nor assuaged by ivory-tower credentials.
- My branch of the family were Unionists in Norfolk, Virginia, so socially, our turn-of-the century unions with Navy and Marine officers turned to New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, the eligible men compatible with the young ladies of my family having died in the late unpleasantness, and the next crop suffering early and often in the War-to-win-all-wars. I fear my personal acquaintance with Nobel prize winners is only in history and chemistry and limited to the Harvard campus, but I've had passing introductions and an occasional lunch with men in other fields introduced by family members at the Cosmos Club in DC (that's the brains one, not the money (alas)). I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to discover that world-class genius and achievement is not necessarily passed on to all succeeding generations with the same certainty that wealth may be. True story.
- I am impressed that you were ever within actual walking distance of the magnificent collection of correspondence related to the Constitution's ratification. No, wait that is Minnesota, where is Garrison Keillor when we need him? Wisconsin was the home of Fighting Bob LaFollette, Progressive, one of my all time heroes, along with Humbert H. Humphrey, Democrat from way up around there, whom I met in a Senate elevator as an intern (not well connected enough to be a page). I did get to hear him making the graduation speech for his daughter's high school in DC. Did your studies take you into the lives of either men, or did your studies take you into the world of social history? Joseph (I never call him Joe) Ellis says the utility of social history to political history is akin to taking a lacrosse stick to Fenway Park. Is that true? My roommate in college played inter-collegiate lacrosse, but I really don't know anything about baseball.
- I guess that is all by way of introduction. To the question, What is your source for the assertion, " 'The War between the states' is only used in historical scholarship as a joke." Do Yankees really say, "put up or shut up" as anything but a joke any more? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Humphrey was a Minnesotan (a fine breed of folk, of course). It is impossible to study the history of Wisconsin without dealing with La Follette and his heirs and heritage. I do have the honor of having been a friend and comrade of Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's most recent Socialist mayor, and I have an emeritus professor who remembers Harvard parties when that fellow Lehrer from Mathematics would sing his foolish little ditties. Alas, my own life is that of a humble civil servant.
As to the last query, of course they do. I was merely trying to inquire whether the term is in fact in use other than as a sort of family in-joke, akin to "the late unpleasantness" and all the Sir-Walter-Scott romanticized taradiddle of "Southron this" and "Southron that". I did not mean any discourtesy, nor to disrespect you or your own fields of study; but confess to being rather out of touch with current usages in the Land of Cotton, which I fled in 1977. (I'm literally one generation out of the cotton fields of West Tennessee, and can still hear my momma discoursing on how little fun it is to be dragging one of those bags along behind you as you pick.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. TWBS is meant mostly for the international reader which our data base says comes up with some frequency. It is not meant as a partisan statement in the same way WONA clearly is. With the last paragraph you have achieved scholastic stature in the anonymous internet, in my eyes at least. Anyone who has command of 19th Century Southron literature enough to reference Sir Walter Scott is worthy of serious consideration.
- Part of the national disfunction was that the two sections read disparate literatures, and so framed the world and its events differently. In the North the best seller was 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (about the 1850s moral paragon who laid down his life for his friends NOT the shuffling self-denegrating toady of 1880s black-face minstrel shows - you don't think the name of the character was chosen to a purpose?) -- in the South, Scott's Ivanhoe was the best seller, which, although an improvement as literature to the Scottish pseudo-history that infamously preceded it, was still romanticizing a traditional feudal society which stifled individual potential, development and achievement outside favored lairds and most favored sons.
- This sort of sectional difference in reading is one of the reasons I favor national testing standards from a core of knowledge to be shared nationally in say, literature, making up 50% of the curriculum. I'd like to see a second bloc of state-requirement at 30%, and a third bloc of buffet-family-ethno-cultural requirement at 20%. Include the big minorities, English and English translations only, German, African-American, Irish, Scots, Latin-American, East Asian, South Asian, European, Islamic, Subsaharan ... Can you tell I taught U.S. History and U.S. Government classes in Fairfax, VA? The selection should reflect the cultural diversity of each state, with a % threshold for budget. [so we would see a Portuguese writers unit available in Hawaii and Rhode Island ... not feasible before online-CD resources]
- The problem I have with state-only curriculum, is that in the case of Virginia, to take but one example from one state, the U.S. history standards wer initially written without anyone in the field at any level. All were realtors. So, Bacon's Rebellion and the Populist Era were omitted. Need I go on? Over the last twenty years there have been two revisions, so we got Populists in, but not the Railroad Strike of 1877. I guess getting Debs mentioned in labor along with Gompers, Lewis and Chavez will suffice for now, but I want Philip Randolph added.
- Even as a high school boy thrilling at the romanticism found in required reading - wow, snippets from Shakespeare's Sonnets can work on a date - I was troubled by the illustrations of ivy-covered castle ruins. Ivy roots emit an acid which decomposes mortar. They are a sign of negligence or indolence about working masonry properties. The castles are in ruins because the failed society they symbolize was overrun by the English for good reasons, cultural, social, political. All this is not to misdirect you, I am a great fan of the Scottish Enlightenment, improvability of man as individual and society, though I do not quite imagine perfectibility as one of Eric Hoffer's 'true believers' might aspire to. I mean no discourtesy.
- While I was in graduate school for education-curriculum writing, I had a friend in the history department who had spent successive summers working in fields of tobacco (cigar wrap leaf in Maine!), picking cotton and planting indigo. He said tobacco is easiest except for the harvest hours, cotton is harder because of the never-ending finger cuts that never quite heal, and indigo was the worst because the wet gave his feet a fungus and the bottle? fly bites drew blood all day. I always thought no high school U.S. history course could be complete without a box of bottle flies for students to thrust a hand into for three minutes (extra quiz credit). But alas, I am retired, and there are all kinds of public school restrictions on extra-credit now ... it could be a cross-curriculum project with the biology teachers.
- To "War Between the States", since the phrase is mentioned in the scholarly citations with some frequency ... I will try to dig up that link for you, you can search on any term or phrase over three hundred years and name your year-span ... I thought it important for the international reader to be acquainted with the term since it appears in American scholarship. Otherwise, I'm not much of a 'Moonlight and Magnolias' kind of guy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John H. Morgan (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) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment (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) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Praise, praise, praise[edit]

You've made excellent upgrades to the USA page. ThievingBeagles (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


For you[edit]

Editor - bronze ribbon - 1 pip.jpg This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this
Service Badge.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll promote this to my user page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)




USA Talk[edit]

Hello TVH, There is a response to your inquiry on my talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


mail[edit]

You have mail again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Items requiring your attention[edit]

THV, you have more mail on my talk page. (I am not sure what you mean by 'ORA' and 'ORN'.) Also, there is more talk on the 'Blockade runners talk page regarding SS Fingal and citation usage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I do not treat the article like my "personal sandbox." I am perfectly fine with valid edits there. When I see an edit that is not good, though, I will revert it and suggest it be brought up on the talk page. When you make an edit claiming "consensus" despite having nothing of the sort, that makes me question it even more. Who agreed to your edit? At all? I didn't. CMD didn't. We're the only ones in the thread at the moment. Please do not misrepresent your edits. If you want more eyes on the edit than just ours, please check with WP:RFC. But I am sure that we would be more amenable to your edits if they were presented to people first rather than put up at once and told to agree with it. For example, we would have been able to point out that "Alaska" and "Hawaii" are poorly introduced, or that too much is delinked, or what not. You aren't allowing that process to happen.

Secondly, I never claimed a "copyright issue" about that CSA map on your user page. I didn't even know it WAS on your user page. I deleted it from commons because it was an incomplete first draft, it had nothing to do with your legend, and I never said it had anything to do with your legend, so I don't know from where you got that notion. A bot then removed it from your page because it was no longer on commons.

I would love to work with you, and you have smarts and knowledge to bring to the project, but please do not accuse other editors of things they did not do, and please work within the consensus structure rather than making an edit and saying "it has consensus!" --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a short break. And thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. It really is a cool map. Please let me know when you want to have a go at the map again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bell (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) 10:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Territorial Crisis[edit]

Dear VA - I edited the section before I read or saw your format for collaboration, but I acknowledged your request.

My efforts to edit the side-by-side format did not work, not sure how to access it. Is it secure? Can only our usernames edit the material? 36hourblock (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

rats. If you say you want something in box 1.a I'll put it there if I can. I hope that when I copied the code I DID NOT add a comma somewhere that blocks us both. As I have said elsewhere, i tweek the code i hate the code i tweek the code i hate the code. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

New user might need some attention[edit]

Hi there! I'm glad to see you really digging in. I spotted a single contribution from a new editor (User:Beverly Wilson Palmer) today, and given the contribution, I thought I'd bring her username to an editor like yourself, just in case she needs newbie assistance. I've not been very active for the last few weeks, and want to make sure an expert on Thaddeus Stevens like Ms. Palmer is given every chance to get early success on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I would like to try to help. out. my condition makes reluctant to hold myself out to do much more than be a cheerleader, though, don't want to be on any open list or anything. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

re China/US area dispute[edit]

See footnote c in the infobox. Depending on how you calculate it, either the PRC or the USA is the 3rd largest country. --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

- Should the areal calculation for China area on the top of the world alter the geographical extent in the U.S. article first sentence? If so, why, and are there WP guides to help us determine that, or what scholarly sources exclude U.S. territory claimed by the USG due to China area calculations?
- And, I really do not want to be 'pissing in the pot' as the saying goes, I mean this as a sincere, direct question on WP policy to you -- Golbez -- you know geography better than I do, no matter how much I bicker -- here it is: to be even handed for international readers, and especially the mainland Chinese, should we not use the Kaplan source to note the Chinese Second Island Chain in the U.S. Infobox territory -- or will that simply anger so many English WP readers in Taiwan that it is 'not worth the candle' as they say. I'm not even going to write it again if you say no, I will not write it again if you make no reply to this second part. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "second island chain", it should not be mentioned whatsoever. China does not control or claim anything out there, it is simply a military projection term. This has to do with your assertion that we didn't need to check all facts and figures because they would not alter the metrics of the country compared with other countries; I pointed out one metric, area, that COULD potentially be affected by including the territories. That is all. For approximately the eighth time, I am not using this as an excuse to not include the territories; I am saying, if you DO include the territories, then the facts and figures need to be checked to see whether or not they include the territories and, if not, either noted or replaced with ones that do. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "toning down" edit. I was just about to say, You must forgive me for thinking we are talking about area calculations for this, only the THIRD time. I thought we also talked about (a) judicial doctrines surrounding 'unincorporated' territory' and (b) population measures such as 'median income' before. That's why it is so intellectually rich arguing with you, we get to range everywhere over all kinds of things.
- The number -- EIGHT -- times you've said something before makes [made] me feel really small-minded. I don't think you realize, that because I respect you, the "I've-told-you-the-same-thing-eight-times-don't-you-get-it" line stings more than you probably intend. It feels [felt] like you are [were] talking down to me, not-good [better now].
- To the point, which I always feel is worth-while arguing with you. My main concern is political which wants to include the territories, and skim over geography with a general reference. Your main concern is geographic which wants to carefully calculate areal measures that will be incorporated in wikipedia's inter-country comparisons, and skim over legal definitions by place with a general reference.
- Both of us are bringing a fine sense of personal honor and scholarly integrity, those same values are then applied in different fields of government and geography, which now in a general interest country article brings about different editorial positions. I can't HELP but think there is a WP policy on country article introduction sections out there in big-hat wiki-land somewhere. WE -- you-and-I -- can-not-be the first two to wrestle with this in a WP country-article. I hate being new to this, but I am grateful for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Right now, the article intro states that the country consists of fifty states and a federal district. All of the numbers and facts in the article flow from that definition. If that definition were changed substantially (which it would be if you include the territories), then it stands to reason that at least some of the rest of the article would change. If they do not, we are basically saying "This is what the country is defined in the intro, but the rest of the article will ignore the territories completely," without even signalling that. That will mislead people and give them incorrect information; why would we want that, ever, even if it doesn't alter metrics? This isn't about being a wonk about facts and figures, this is the simple fact that, you are changing the definition of the country in the intro, yet appear to think the rest of the article can go without reflecting that new definition. I apologize for talking down to you, though this has been frustrating. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I did not see the two as prohibitively related, political place names and place areas calculated. I thought that editors for a country article would find reliable sources to describe it. The aspects might be historical, political, geographic, demographic or economic. There would not necessarily be internal consistency by a commonly used, consolidated database across all disciplines referenced throughout the article.
- Each editor need only ensure that HIS contribution was balanced and verifiable as it related to the topic addressed, reflecting the preponderance of scholarship in each field on the subject addressed.
- I also have a writer's block or something on this subject for now. I'm going to look for some WP intro guideline or something. -- Just because I don't make an immediate reply doesn't mean I have given up, I promise. -- Are the Requests for Comment coming to a close on Dec. 15 or after? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know when the RFC ends but it's been an abysmal failure as no one else has offered comment. We need to sell this better. --Golbez (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel I'm screaming in the coffee shop, I may not believe what he says, but I will defend -- to the death -- his RIGHT to say it. -- and no one looks up from their cell devices. I'm going to keep looking for a WP guideline somewhere. Well, happy holidays, until we are at it again. Looks like another round of activity over at CSA. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1860 election[edit]

Hey there. I've made a comment on the talk page of the article on the 1860 election concerning the changes you made there recently. Thought to leave you a note about it here considering the talk page is rather inactive. Thanks. Redverton (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

21st century territories history[edit]

Reference: Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.66.236 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheVirginiaHistorian[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheVirginiaHistorian

TFD requested a bad faith Sockpuppet investigation on you just because we have a similar view related to one topic. --Buzity (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

re Palmyra[edit]

I read that exact PDF and saw that snippet. Heh. Incidentally, so far as I know, Honolulu is probably the longest city, since the consolidated city-county includes all of the northwestern Hawaiian islands. Tokyo is another contender, if it were an actual city, but the Tokyo-to prefecture includes the Ogasawara Islands which are also far out to sea. --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Definition of USA[edit]

TVH, I'm carrying the ball for you over at the notice board and have cited your assertions a couple of times. You might want to get in their soon and check on matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch drawing.svg Possible compromise resolution
The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I see where the problem is ...[edit]

See Talk:Fascism where TFD shows pretty clearly an ability to see things being said which were not said and claims made which were not made at DR/N about "what is the US" <g> [2] which I think shows the problem faced at DRN quite nicely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It does help to see where TFD may be coming from. I will now launch on a lengthy sortie which the DRNs have cautioned me to learn how to avoid on public pages.
_ _ Much at 'Facscism' is crimped about by political science little informed intellectual history.* Not my bag. For instance, one editor struggling with marxist paraphrasing of a fascism "promoting the idea of a proletarian-based-state", would benefit in conciseness and relevance, were the writer to make the 1930s contemporary, self-described reference to the "volk". It would not only be better style, it would allow for the historical connections made into earlier intellectual developments of the concept of "nation" referenced in France, but dismissed by the narrowly academic field of the published political scientist - or wanna-be -- they ARE out there.
_ _ The connection between marxism and fascism is the idea of a uniformly virtuous body-politic led at the head by the true-believers (Hoffer). This idea is serious, powerful, important to be delt with by adherents of the federal republic. Madison wrestles with it in Federalist #10. It is nothing less than the English levelleer tradition made manifest in Cromwell's 1600s Commonwealth, not to be lightly dismissed in that 1700s time. At the end of Cromwell's experiment in corporate state virtue, transgressors were hung for dancing. Britain was saved in part because Cromwell's son inheriting power -- succession of power is ever a problem of governance -- the son was a gentle sort of courtier who did not inspire men to fight and die for the sake of a non-monarch king-in-all-but-name.
_ _ In a nutshell: Even if we were all to begin equal in wealth and opportunity, over time by circumstance, fortune and enterprise, we would find ourselves in society with unequal holdings of wealth. Whenever, whomever we would assign to re-adjust society's inequities would be by definition tyrants. These are the heads of the marxist and fascist regimes, tyrants. [Marxists and fascists are NOT democratic socialists of the modern European kind, another political beastiary classification entirely as they value individual rights apart from and above the "nation" as a body-politic.]
_ _ As Madison frames it in #10, the great issue in modern government is how to allocate and reallocate wealth and opportunity so that it benefits the entire community of residents, both in the near term and for the long run benefit of both individuals and society. That answer is a federal republic of large geographic, cultural and social diversity, where local majorities cannot oppress their minorities severely, for long, because the few can appeal to the larger sense of justice among the unbiased (disinterested, not indifferent) national majorities on the basis of individual fundamental rights and community democratic procedures.
  • I found my volume of Levinson and Sparrow. The anthology is exciting precisely because it has essays presented at a symposium, papers round-robin critiqued, polished, published and represent both political scientists stretching into history, and historians stretching into constitutional law. Great good stuff !.!.! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Virginia History[edit]

Hi TVH, while doing reference and bibliography work I stumbled across some material I thought you might be interested in. They are available in their entirety as Ebooks in PDF and/or EPUB formats. Enjoy.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding! I can use all three. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


You have mail[edit]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your comment on my talk page[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your good advice. In fact I did edit the more specific articles first; about four of them which I tried to put in the economics and health sections in the United States article. You are right, and that is what the instructions say to do, but I think it would have been very unlikely that I would have known about it if it weren't for more experienced editors explaining it to me. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

United States[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -TFD (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I filed a 3rr report and you may reply here. -TFD (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hypocrite, how dare you[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  MastCell Talk 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TheVirginiaHistorian (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The rationale for blocking me is mistaken. “Territories” has been edited using the dispute resolution wording by Collect, Gwhillhickers, Amadscientist, Rightcowleftcoast, and TheVirginiaHistorian. The unsourced edit war removing it is by Golbez, TFD/TheFourDeuces and CMD/Chipmunkdavis. The DRN is, that the US territories shall be mentioned in the first sentence of the article United States, thus, “The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, […as well as several territories.], or [… with territories of varying levels of autonomy.], or [...and several territories.] Ten times DRN-like language has been placed with consensus and sources to “include territories” in the first sentence, then removed. *1a* 19 March, Collect placed “territories”. Older≠wiser/Bkonrad reverted “territories”. *1b* Gwhillhickers restored “territories”. *1c* 18:26, 19 March 2013‎ Golbez . tweeked away from the consensus, then proclaimed, (this is how its done. if you have a problem with this then you admit the "D"RN cares only about wording and not actually resolving the dispute, and fucking take me to arbcom, no one rational can possibly dispute this.) “The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories.” *2* Preserve “territories#. 21:51, 19 March 2013‎ Amadscientist ‬‎ . . (I don't object to the wording just the removal of reliable sources) #Remove “territories”. --- two steps: (1) 02:09, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez. . (i made this, i can unmake this. i do not recognize the authority or veracity of that edit and should not have implemented it.) (2) 14:02, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (silly me, i reverted to the wrong, incorrect, poorly discussed, no-consensus version, when i meant to return to the status quo. thanks for pointing out my error, collect) *3* Restore “territories”. 14:13, 3 April 2013‎ Collect. . (talk pages shows this as having the most support overall - the status quo had much less support) #Remove “territories”. 14:30, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez ‬‎ . . (then pray tell why did my attempt at a consensus implementation live far longer than this horrible little tripe? choose one of my versions, this one is apparently not an option. as you made your choice that this one was bad through laziness.) *4* Restore “territories”. 00:45, 4 April 2013‎ RightCowLeftCoast ‬‎ . . (reverted change to lead per WP:BRD, no consensus was formed to revert the lead to its former worded; modified lead to closely resemble consensus wording achieved at DRN)#Remove “territories”. By TFD/The Four Deuces, 03:59, 4 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces *5* Restore “territories”. 11:59, 4 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian. #Remove “territories”. 17:38, 20 April 2013‎ Golbez .. (correcting per my revelation on the talk page) *6* Restore “territories”. 06:39, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian ‬‎ . . (no consensus to remove territories. see Talk) #Remove “territories”. 12:15, 29 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces *7* Restore “territories”. 12:52, 29 April 2013‎ Collect #Removed “territories”. 14:44, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *8* Restored “territories”. 15:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian‎ . . #Removed “territories".16:16, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *9* Restored “territorities”. 17:09, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian… #Removed “territories”18:02, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *10* Restored “territories” 21:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian. . #Removed “territories” by CMD/Chipmunkdavis 13:59, 1 May 2013‎ Chipmunkdavis Here are two sources supporting “including territories”. AT UNITED STATES TALK: ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." Executive Order 13423 This is a straightforward affirmative statement that the inhabited territories are a part of the country, without legalese.… Populations which were acquired under US jurisdiction as "aliens" are now incorporated in the nation; the Census Department defines "native-born American" to include those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian 2:58 am, 29 April 2013. Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block, i.e., edit-warring.  Sandstein  17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Territory Issue[edit]

I think that you misunderstood Sandstein's response. You were not topic-banned from editing the article, and an administrator has no authority to topic-ban a user without consensus. You were blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. The block has expired. You may edit the article as long as you don't edit-war. What article is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States. The sourced language opposed is, "The US is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories." WP editor IgnorantArmies suggested "... district as well as five territories", I agreed, and the administrator axed it without prior discussion, bowed out after our dialogue, and the three confederates appeared. When the 1-3 became 2-3, my contributions were unsuccessfully challenged as sock-puppetry, the confederates persisted throughout the resolution stages and returned in concert with the administrator to disrupt then revert the implementation of the DR. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

rationale and sources, opposition[edit]

Sought language in the US article is, “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” In this case we look at the US as an internationally recognized nation-state, which is disputed. By the 1933 Montvideo Convention, Art.1. The state as a person of international law should possess: (a) population; (b) territory; (c) government; and (d) relations with the other states. Art.2, “The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.” States in free association become independent in 20 years if treaty is not renewed for Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and Micronesia. But that the federal state of the US is a "sole person" in its 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories of citizens represented in Congress, is disputed.

Legal scholars (Lawson and Sloane 2009) show Puerto Rico enjoys UN criteria for democratic process, fundamental rights, self-governance and participation in national councils to comply with 1960 UN resolution 1541, allowing for “integration with an independent state” [p.1134], disputed by reference to pre-1960 primary documents without scholarly interpretation, -- though, once again -- only 3% Puerto Ricans voted ‘independence’ in the Nov 2012 referendum with 80% turnout. US citizens in the US territories are represented in the US House, --- by US constitutional practice for 220 years, once there is a path to citizenship and 100,000 Americans --- DC (elected mayor) and territories (elected governors) are listed in the Representatives directory by US place represented, equally with the states.

The opposition hinges on a) the CIA Factbook, US has a section, US government, with subdivisions, President, Congress, States, Territories. Editors synthesize from a tertiary source to suppose Congress and states are included in the US government, only Territories are not. b) It is said territories are not states so they cannot be in the US, comparing the US to the British Commonwealth or UK in non-sequiturs. c) the Insular Cases 100 years ago allowed Congress to annex territory of aliens, who would be made citizens by Congress, just as "at the ratification of the Constitution" (Northwest Territories), --- the test set forth in the Downes case for political incorporation into the US --- by Congress. But editors insist the US congress is incompetent, the Supreme Court must overturn the Supreme Court. The Court ruled good law, Territories were not to have the Uniformity Clause applied for revenue purpose as they were not states. But Editors synthesize from a legal digest, that revenue provisions bar inhabitants from the US federal republic in the matter of citizenship, --- whom Congress has made citizens with self-government and Members of Congress in the federal republic.

In brief, the discussion, mostly daily October 2012 - May 2013 revolves around the following points.

  • Primary sources. [8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1101. “Definitions. (29) The term ‘’outlying possessions of the United States’ means American Samoa and Swains Island. [p.22]. (36) The term ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [p.23]. There is no US statute declaring “US territories are not a part of the US for US law”. Also provided when contested, each statute making US citizens in 5 territories, and the .gov sites for territory Members of Congress.
  • Secondary USG - foreign. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sec.104 [8 u.s.c. 1104] The Secretary of State will administer and enforce the provisions of this Act and all other immigration and nationality laws. Chap. 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), INA provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the US… [from Nov. 3, 1986], the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States”. As defined in INA, the term "outlying possession" is only American Samoa and Swains Island [p.18]. There is no State Department view of law in force declaring “US territories are not a part of the US for international purposes.” an unsourced opposition assertion.
  • Secondary USG - domestic. When implementing Congressional statutes, the executive interprets ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District… and five organized US territories. There is no Executive Order found stating, “US territories are not a part of the US in executing US law”. "Native-born American" include those born in the five organized US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants by Homeland Security’s US citizenship and immigration services, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." There is no source disputing US nationality in the five organized US territories, an unsourced opposition assertion.
  • Scholarly sources. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” Summarized by the political science scholar Bartholomew Sparrow, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). There is no scholar who says, “modern US territories are not a part of the US”, an unsourced opposition assertion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

United States talk page[edit]

Thanks TVH, for your support concerning Golbez hostile commentary. I am not sure that I can edit on the Wikipedia article United States due to Golbez continued hostile remarks. Some of Golbez hostile commentary may have been removed from the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unincorporated territories of the United States 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:
  • schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/50_4/05_lawson-sloane.pdf …Puerto Rico’s legal status reconsidered], p. 1176. Viewed June 14, 2013.</ref> In November 2008 a district court judge ruled that a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Service award[edit]

Aye there TVH, just passin' through and noticed your service award needs upgrading.

Editor - silver ribbon - 2 pips.jpg This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Not all as pleasant or instructive as the Jefferson page, I fear. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil War Montage[edit]

Thank you sir for your thoughts on the civil war montage. However I must admit, the montage is not my own work. I found it in the Wikimedia Commons. I think we could even improve upon this one, perhaps adding more scenes of war to the 3 we have.

Sincerely, Themane2 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got my support. Check other long historical/war articles to see how many are usual on the "Montage Scale" for size/crowded meter.... :)
Perhaps: Massed infantry (artillery is already featured), Union gunline on blockade (riverine already featured), wagons in train along a road, or in a park--rows to the horizon! (Library of Congress photo), Grant at headquarters with telegraph wires strung to every division commander (enlisted already featured), temporary railroad bridge with locomotive pictured--engineered of cornstalks (LoC) ...
The caption could then instructively note some of the technological innovations pictured: since Napoleonic era and Crimean War, army artillery has rifled bores, infantry replaced smooth bore muskets with rifled arms on both sides, ironclads ruled the inland waterways... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Confederate States Army - Strengths and Weaknesses[edit]

Hello, Virg. Hist.

Thanks for your support over the short section I added to the page on 'Confederate States Army'. No, I don't have specific references to hand. It seemed to me that the points were so well known that we wouldn't need them. (By the way, the word you thought possibly superfluous was not 'interestingly' but 'increasingly'.) Really can't see a good reason for the deletion, anyway. Valetude (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

re[edit]

"You then summarized my position, DC was not in US possession until 1972" I'm going to need a citation on that, since I do not recall making such a statement. I recall (and of course I could be wrong, hence the request for a link) saying that you said that DC was not part of the US until 1972, which as we all know is different from being a possession. Which is kind of the crux of the whole argument. --Golbez (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks. you remember correctly, I said, 'DC not a part of the federal republic until people represented in 1972', you restated 'DC not a part of the United States until 1972'. The differences among interpretations of "a part of the US" is indeed the crux of the argument. If I may restate three positions summarily, we have:
a) "a part of the US" is possessions, territories, federal district and states, all admitting occupation alone does not make a place "a part".
b) "a part of the US" is admittance to the federal republic constitutionally by citizenship and representation in Congress by national practice, modern US territories, DC and states.
c) " a part of the US" are places which are or have ever been, states.
To save $3, I bought through Amazon a volume recommended by Newyorkbrad, but is taking over a week to get here versus purchase directly at Amazon. The online view of the anthology shows both b) and c) views are inconclusive in the scholarly community. Newyorkbrad observed the wikifencing between myself and Bkonrad-0uw reflected the real-world diversion of interpretations of the Insular Cases at 'unincorporated territories of the united states'. More to learn, better done in the subsidiary articles, just as you suggested. I will return to 'Unincorporated' page after reading 'Domestic in a foreign sense' entirely through, as I have my own copy of 'Louisiana Purchase and American expansion'. For the benefit of the 'United States' page, I am TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
The main issue here seems to be, you (and apparently a few others) see the "federal republic" as being a distinct entity from the "United States". I don't. To be part of one is to be part of the other. And, as I did before, to use modern terminology and law, the district was incorporated the moment Maryland was, and that cannot be undone. --Golbez (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean the moment Virginia and Maryland was. It seems so as to places for summary c) in the case of DC, as you say.
But that means rights of citizenship were reversed for residents in DC following its establishment as the federal district by state consent as provided in the constitution -- which cannot be done today in modern US territories, according to Supreme Court holdings as we discussed earlier. When I was growing up, I had a neighbor in northern Virginia who, were he about to be embroiled in a controversy over candidates at election time, he would say, "I'm not a Virginian, I'm a citizen of DC -- I don't vote, so I don't have a say in it".
Because I focus on populations in places, I would be happy to allow for defining "a part of the US" as places with organic acts of US citizenship mutually agreed to such as DC before 1972 by Virginia and Maryland legislatures, but not Puerto Rico before 1952 as its earlier citizenship was conferred without Puerto Rican consent. Nevertheless, today that would include modern territories by extension as 'a part of the US', as they all have organic acts of citizenship with more privileges than DC had, mutually agreed to by congress and local legislatures or plebiscite or both. Aside: Since 1972 DC has no more than modern US territories in the US federal republic -- except presidential electors without state-like population proportion -- it is forever three until statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was speaking to the present District, so just Maryland. The Virginia portion was returned long before 1972. And, not exactly forever three, as it's simply "the same as the smallest state"; were demographics to become really, really wonky, that number could increase from 3. As for the rest, I have no interest in pursuing an argument on such a minority position as "DC was not part of the federal republic". You may be able to find traction with that elsewhere but I see no further benefit to discussing it. Sorry to be so blunt but I just see nothing good that can come out of it. Nothing on Wikipedia will be impacted by it. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is what I mean, I have a lot to learn. I have unintentionally misled you. DC is a part of the US in my view, since 1791, and its population is a part of the federal republic since 1972. If as you say there is no distinction between 'a part of the US' and 'federal republic' using Native-American reservations as your guide because they are 'a part of the US', then just as Native American reservation places are 'a part of the US' without citizens until mid 1900s or direct congressional representation as polities, so too are modern US territories with US citizens and their own Members of Congress. They too were directly administered by the Army then the Interior Department before self-government, Puerto Rico electing its first governor in 1948.
a) The only item you address is the last because it seems here online, only the last item is responded to--not just you-- and that aside was evidently not clearly stated on my part. The amendment said, "but in no event more than the least populous State", that is, in no event more than three, unlike a state. -- the point is that DC is not taken to be a state, just as modern US territories are not to be taken to be states with presidential electors based on population or Puerto Rico would have more electors than 20 states.
b) My point is not to exclude DC, It must be included either on the grounds of places once states -- which we agree, or on the grounds of inclusion in federal republic by representation in congress, -- a point on which we part. I observe that on the basis of US constitutional practice of "incorporating" territories for 200 years, DC is on that grounds a part of the federal republic since 1972, the modern US territories are also. DC is 'a part of the US' since 1791.
On the grounds that Native American reservations have always been 'a part of the US' but have at times a) never been states, b) directly administered by the Army or the Interior Department, c) without citizens nor represented in Congress, THEN modern US territories meet the same criteria to be included as 'a part of the US', each with an organic act and citizens, self-government and Member of Congress. My copy of 'Foreign in a domestic sense' came in. Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because X had certain aspects and is a part of the country, doesn't mean Y with those same aspects is part of the country. That's the complaint all of us have had with your logic: You look at one entity, which is part, and say this other entity has characteristics of it, and conclude that of course the other entity is part of the country. This is synthesis and original research. You cannot annex an island to the country, only the country can do that. So instead of trying to find logical solutions to this, all that matters is finding adequate sourcing of annexation. Any further argument on the logic of incorporation of being part of the country or republic should be discarded immediately, as it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
(And yes, I know I have brought up logical arguments in the past, like "they can leave, so they aren't incorporated" or what not. But those took a backseat to the sourcing, which I've clearly made it a point to ask for lately, sourcing which has not been supplied.) --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. well argued. Burnett in 'Foreign in a domestic sense' points out among scholars there are two inconclusive views, --the point of her balanced anthology representing both schools of thought. The view I favor takes the explicit language in organic acts, political union as a compact, to mean political incorporation. -- key word "compact" (Burnett takes the other view, but she still includes scholars explicating my preferred take).
I did not know enough to use the term of art in a pointed way until last week reading the online view of the book from her introduction. I had quoted 'compact' in passages pertaining to Northern Marianas, but without understanding how it cemented the union -- in one view. So the answer for me will not be an either-or outcome, but scholars 'on-the-one-hand; on-the-other'. Thanks again for your patience. Gotta hit the books before further reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Bombardment of Cherbourg 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 GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Prabash.A's talk page.
Message added 13:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Prabash.Akmeemana  13:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

The article Bombardment of Cherbourg you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Bombardment of Cherbourg for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of Architect on Jefferson page[edit]

Hi TVH, we are still discussing whether or not to include 'Architect' in the infobox and moreover, whether we should cover this better in the article itself with a subsection, so we need more informed opinions from people who have been involved with the page. -- Gwillhickers 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebooks[edit]

I was going over sources for Jefferson and architecture and came across a couple of more E'books in my travels I'd thought you'd might find interesting.

When you get to the GoogleBook page 'hover' (don't click) on the red box that says, 'EBOOK FREE', then select and click on Download PDF and/or Epub. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers 11:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

sorry I don't know what you mean[edit]

"thanks for the animated map at ACW" What's ACW? --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I meant CSA, Confederate States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't received this before...[edit]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

E'books[edit]

Came across these E'books in my travels. Thought you might want to add them to your E'library, but not before checking with your wife. smile -- Gwillhickers 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Coles volume you sent me is the citation for the latest at Thomas Jefferson-Louisiana Purchase. ... Its in the computer files somewhere. not the same as scanning a bookshelf. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's a primary source you might find useful:
The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson. Compiled from Family letters and reminiscences by his great granddaughter Sarah N. Randolph
-- Gwillhickers 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the acclaimed three volume biography, written by Henry Stephens Randall in 1858, considered the most authoritative biography written about Jefferson since he was the only biographer permitted to interview Jefferson’s immediate family.
Enjoy, -- Gwillhickers 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

More oldie-goldies[edit]

E'books:

USA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent USA 1863
CSA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent CSA 1862
Union celebrated Andrew Jackson the anti-nullifier; Confederacy celebrated the hero repulsing invasion at New Orleans

-- Gwillhickers 06:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. it's like an early christmas. I have a volume of famous American speeches that includes one of Webster's, Reply to Haynes. wow, what a different world of ideas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At Talk:Confederate States of America#Deleting Andrew Jackson celebration on both sides BusterD suggested we team up to create a Stamps of the American Civil War article. Nearby is the image that failed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is already Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States which I rewrote almost entirely some time ago where Confederate stamps and postal history are well covered and displayed. As 'Union' stamps go, many that were printed before the Civil War broke out were used through the civil War itself, while the few that were printed during the Civil War were used for some time after the war, so referring to these as Stamps of the American Civil War is perhaps not the best description. In any case, there is no reason why the Civil War page shouldn't have an example of a couple of stamps issued during that time. -- Gwillhickers 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I also think a compilation as a gallery with text of U.S. commemoratives would be interesting, which is probably what BusterD intended. But here, there is manifest confusion over stamps as commemoratives versus stamps as artifacts of documentary history. Even Rjensen thought there was nothing to the warring governments picturing of the same man because --non-sequitur-- the USPS ran commemoratives of all its presidents in the 1920-30s. I registered no point with him observing Andrew Jackson was not a Confederate president, and that was not the point of the stamps at the time in the time.
I think I still need a source on the divergent significance of Jackson on both sides before the stamps can be accepted. One editor suggested there were other illustrations of Jackson for use without cancellation marks, so stamps as artifacts is clearly not understood by editors on the page. But in addition, I thought the stamps were a two-fer, showing divergent use of the same icon, AND the disparity of technological capacities available on each side. I'm still have half-an eye out for the description I read concerning Andrew Jackson and G. Washington on both sides' stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Confederate army[edit]

Thank you for your kind comments about my proposed, but deleted section headed 'Strengths and weaknesses'. Is there such a thing as an executive editor, who makes a final judgment on these issues? Valetude (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes administrators are listed in the Talk page heading. There is an automatic interest group in the listed Wikiprojects or in this case "Task Force" at the for a third party take on the issue ... toggle [show] on the Additional Information line. They should be listed in a Request for Comment (RFC).
When I recently went to the WP:Teahouse for a strategy to avoid controversy, the advice was first use a Request for Comment on the Talk page, see the WP:RfC page.
That is assuming good faith, first try to talk it out by calling attention to the issue, --- way before anybody gets called/blocked for edit warring (three reversions without discussion on the Talk page) or the back-and-forth becomes eligible for the later 'dispute resolution'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

E'books 2[edit]

-- Gwillhickers 20:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks. I dream of writing a compilation biography of longest serving Virginia U.S. Representatives/Senators, and William Branch Giles is on my list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to add a (hopefully) small paragraph in the First Barbary War section about Jefferson and his gunboats which later on proved to be a not so great idea. While hunting and searching through sources I found these -- I'm sure they're good for other topics also.
  • Sullivan, William (1834). FAMILIAR LETTERS ON PUBLIC CHARATERS, AND PUBLIC EVENTS FROM THE PEACE OF 1783, TO THE PEACE OF 1815, Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf, Boston, 345 pages; E'book
  • Jefferson, Thomas; Washington, H.A. (Ed.); (1854). The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Inaugural addresses and messages. Replies to public addresses. Indian addresses. Miscellaneous: 1. Notes on Virginia; 2. Biographical sketches of distinguished men; 3. The batture at New Orleans, Ricker, Thorne & Co., New York, 607 pages, E'book
  • Jefferson, Thomas ; Dwight; Theodore Dwight (1839). The character of Thomas Jefferson: as exhibited in his own writings, Weeks, Jordan & Company, 371 pages E'book
-- Gwillhickers 01:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. rich rich rich. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wednesday : Here's a page that's chuck full of primary sources : Online Books by Thomas Jefferson -- Gwillhickers 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Where do you find these, how do you mine the internet for these resources? For Jefferson, for Daniel Webster? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Further tightening of History section[edit]

Hello, I see you are back from your brief hiatus.

I'm thinking we should reign in the rest of the History section further (esp. Independence and expansion, minus Contemporary era) and have it show the "big picture" while leaving out historical details that did not have as big and direct of an impact on how the US is today, and I'm sure you will agree. While you were gone I tried going over some of them, though I still think you have a better eye than I do in terms of removing the right details to leave a concise but informative coverage. Your further proposals at Talk:United States would be welcome. Cadiomals (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamestown (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) 09:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

E'book and a most interesting author[edit]

See any similarity to Jefferson in Watson? -- Gwillhickers 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Scots-Irish roots I presume. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, heh, Actually I was referring to Watson's political and ideological aspirations. Both Jefferson and he disliked bloated government, despised big banks, championed the poor farmer and embraced an agrarian political ideology. His was the 'People's' Party' whereas Jefferson was referred to as the 'People's President'. Given Watson's two biographies on TJ also there seems to be more than an incidental affinity between the two. i.e.Cut from the same bolt of cloth. Anyway, I've been busy hunting and gathering for sources on Jefferson and have been adding them to the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson page. Unfortunately many such sources don't come up in general google searches, so I have to go to other lengths to find them. What fun! -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Your civil war stamps draft[edit]

Is there a link to this draft on your user page? Can't seem to find one there or on my talk page where I 'thought' it was. Will have to back track my browser history to find it otherwise. Re:Image format. Use whatever works. I've always used the table format for horizontal display of several images -- easier to edit in terms of singling out which caption belongs to a given image. Again, I would recommend that you be very choosey about including stamps that are peripherally related to Civil War themes -- esp if the page isn't going to take on narrative dimensions. -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox which may translate to User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I did find a use for just about every stamp in the new category on wikimedia commons. Thanks. A couple I've found using names from the Scott's Specialty Catalogue (now in color) -- German immigration at Wikicommons, but others are not found like Irish immigration or Antietam. But I know to snag from Smithsonian when I learn how on the Mac. In the sandbox, I've made note of (placeholder) for stamps or for issues. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Puerto Rico".The discussion is about the topic Puerto Rico. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Rico[edit]

Hello my friend,

Thank you for your message. It seems as if we have a lot in common. We are about the same age, served in the military (by the way thank you for service), we love history and writing about military related subjects. I had checked out your user boxes before, very nice.

We may differ in regard to what the political status of Puerto Rico should rightly be, Independent or state as in statehood, however the bottom line is that Puerto Rico's political structure and future all depends on what the United States wants. Nobody tells the boss what to do. It is what the boss wants and is best for him. We are not kids anymore who could be fooled by what we are told or by what we are lead to believe, If our country, the United States, has influenced the politics of foreign nations thru agencies such as the CIA, then what is to keep the US from dealing with the politics of Puerto Rico and it's future?

In regard to the "incorporated" or "unincorporated" issue, I agree that more research into the subject is needed. The problem is that a discussion of this subject may turn political. When a subject becomes "political" or is of a political nature, then it is tough to decide who is right and who is wrong. When it comes to politics and/or religion, everybody is right and everybody is wrong, depending on individual believes. When we cite the so-called reliable sites by scholars and so on, we must be careful as to how reliable they are. Scholars, historians and authors are often biased and influenced by their own personal believes and the times in which they lived. What we need to conclude the issue involved is a copy of an official legal document in which the Government of the United States has made it clear if the island is "incorporated" or "unincorporated".

Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. They will make it easier to "let it go" when the time comes. My guess is that you were an outstanding MP. It seems as though participants in the discussion fear the loss of any reference to "unincorporated", -- when of course Puerto Rico must be "unincorporated" as long as the discriminatory tax regime is enforced on PR where it would be unconstitutional for a state. My guess is stockholders of Puerto Rican sugar interests are not interested in bringing legal suit to change it. politics, as you say.
Regardless, my point seems to be entirely lost, I wish only to present a) there is a controversy as sourced at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and b) one side says "incorporated" as sourced at Boston College Law Review, p.1175.
Because the discussion was begun by an unreasonable IP who wanted to replace "unincorporated" with "incorporated" everywhere, and because the discussion was pushed to DRN before working out the reasonable language I was looking for in consensus, it looks as though my interest in presenting the controversy will fail to be included in the article. And I just can't see bringing it up again for a year without seeming disruptive. Mercy11 already thinks I was the wild-eyed IP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, I told myself "I like this guy, this is someone you can talk to". You see my friend, in this project there are too many people who are uncivil and with whom you cannot have an intellectual discussion or conversation. It is always nice to find someone with whom you can converse. Take care and Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN case closed[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Puerto Rico". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because no volunteer accepted to mediate the case. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! ----Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC) This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.

Puerto Rico Project Talk Page[edit]

I have reinstated your removal of the DRN section at the Puerto Rico project Talk Page since the DRN in question (HERE) was closed just yesterday, making the information too recent to be removed. This is particularly so given that there is now a consequential follow-up RfC on the same issue HERE. I think it is useful information for a newcomer to have the background information accessible to him, and removal would prevent them from just that. I think you will agree that there is a wealth of information and opinions that were presented at the DRN, but which someone new to the discussion may find necessary to access. Yet removal of the link would make that difficult or impossible depending on the user. Most importnatly, the page in question is archived by a bot. I appreciate your understanding. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You duplicated the information for the DRN in your own post, moved the RfC notice out of chronological order, and demoted the RfC which incorporated comments from all sides in the discussion section and at the DRN. I simply removed my own post now duplicating yours. Please read the RfC carefully before you object to it, it incorporates your viewpoint also. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing stamps[edit]

Abraham Lincoln
Issue of 1866

Aye TVH, I see your Civil War stamps page is shaping up. I added a stamp for Andrew Johnson, which was missing. Also, I noticed you have added a section for Abraham Lincoln stamps, but it (and the entire article/draft) is missing the first Lincoln stamp, issued in 1866, one year exactly, after death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole discussion from BHG's talk page, upon her request, has been copied to my talk page as linked above. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment on Talk:Puerto Rico[edit]

Apologies if my comment was misunderstood. I did state, "Thank you all..." - although I can understand that it may have appeared to be directed specifically at you per the threading. You're certainly not the only one guilty of protracting the discussion. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

re: Virginia in the American Civil War[edit]

Hello, VH, thank you for noting the previous editing I had done on that page. Unfortunately my edit was undone arbitrarily in a retardataire manner. Compare my edit with what is currently on that page as well as History of Virginia. This is the old version of my original edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Virginia&oldid=316388037#West_Virginia_split

I have the 1861 list of Virginia voting districts by counties if you are still interested in having it. If so I will add it to this post. Sincerely, Dubyavee (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, please. thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Here are the voting districts, I scanned it rather than type it all out. If you need the citation it is "Ordinances Adopted by the Convention of Virginia at the Adjournd Session, in June and July, 1861", Wyatt M. Elliott, Printers, Richmond, 1861, page 44.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3810/12597476383_f47609d587_b.jpg

I will probably change the WV material on the Virginia pages at some point, but it has been very difficult. There have been a lot of changes in scholarship over the last "75 years", and we need to bring the material up to date. One doesn't use "reliable sources" if the reliable sources are provably wrong, no matter how revered the historian is. Dubyavee (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. it goes into my "Virginia History" notebook.
Not sure how to persuade Rjensen. His objection seems to be one of academic turf wars. Virginia historians do not do West Virginia, so WP 'Virginia ---' should not do West Virginia so much. But if the people in the time called themselves "Virginians", then it seems to me they should be in the Virginia history article to some degree, regardless of how modern academia choses to divide themselves so as to make scholarly disjunctions for their professional purposes. Those are not the purposes of the general reader, nor the history of the people of that time.
On the other hand, I am not proposing that 'West Virginia in the ACW' and 'Virginia in the ACW' be merged, however logical that might be, so I do see something in Rjensen's point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page launch[edit]

Hi TVH, I noticed you havn't created the American Civil War history on stamps page yet. Was just wondering why. Seems you have more than enough sourced content to make the plunge. Are there any issues? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My notifications box says DragonflySixtyseven reviewed the 'ACW on stamps' candidate 9 days ago with a green box checked.
The same editor reviewed the 'History of Virginia on stamps' with a green box checked 14 hours ago.
How do I know if the article is in mainspace? Is that mine to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you don't need the permission of anyone to launch a page in the first place. If any new page has issues they can be fixed. If the page has so many issues where it's nominated for deletion that's another matter, but again, you need no one's permission. Your article is good to go. The above link is red because the page doesn't exist. Click on it, and simply copy and paste your draft into the edit window and hit 'save'. Then add categories, links, etc as needed. After you save, the link will then become blue, just in case you didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article is created as a B class, Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, with the war misspelled. It seems debilitatingly long. Main article: American Civil War is deleted, categories are deleted. The title does not come up on any subject searches, it is so convoluted that the bot cannot suggest any subject links -- not even American Civil War.
I would prefer the title ‘American Civil War on postage stamps’ or 'American Civil War history on stamps' since the stamps used in the war and the stamps commemorating famous Americans and presidents are not explicitly commemorating the Civil War, the article provides the value added recounting the civil war careers of participants pictured on stamps, the stamps give the wp:significance of the biographies to be included in the article.
The story is the American Civil War, including the explicit commemorations of soldiers, sailors and events, -- but that is conceptually only one-third the article subject matter, omitting the stamps of the war and the famous Americans on stamps with Civil War biographies. Do I now just start a new article title with the same text, make the article links, and let a bot delete the orphan? Is there a reason for deleting the tag, main article: American Civil War? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your great effort of creating and building the Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps article.
Gwillhickers (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Amalie (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Perforation and Gumming[edit]

Dear Virginia Historian, Please do not take it amiss that I’d like to suggest that you make a correction in your article on Civil War-related stamps. You say that the first US stamps were produced with perforation and gumming machines. This is not accurate. All US stamps issued between 1847 and 1856 were imperforate, requiring manual cutting; and sheets were likewise gummed by hand. In 1856 or ’57, perforation apparatus (acquired from England) went into use in the US; stamps continued to be gummed by hand until 1880 (see the Wikipedia article on Postage Stamp Gum).

I’m not quite sure how to rewrite the section to ensure accuracy while preserving your point about rapid technological innovation (which the prompt introduction of mechanized perforation within a decade surely exemplifies), and I’m hoping you’ll find the best way. All best, BFolkman — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFolkman (talkcontribs) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm afraid I'm new to the field in a scholarly way, though a collector or enthusiast for over fifty years. Retirement and Wikipedia have given me a new outlet for the hobby interest, most recently a section at U.S. territories on 'Territories on stamps'. I should be able to qualify the statement to align with other sources. Thanks for your contributions, I am happy to be a part of something bigger by collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Dear Virginia Historian, I'm afraid I can't help you--I'm not a Mac user, and I've never tried to upload fair use images. Someone who might be of help, and who has done some editing on your Commemoration piece, is GWillhickers. Hope you're ultimately successful. All best, BFolkman (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I kept hammering at it, found on the mac you can reformat the .tiff file into .jpeg, which is rendered .jpg on the upload wizard. the same image on .jpeg is 20% of the size of the same image with .tiff. That brings them all under 100KB, which I believe is some sort of default limit for the upload wizard. I uploaded 'New Orleans capture', as a fair use for the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thirteenth Amendment (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) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some mo'[edit]

Washington Territory

Minnesota Territory

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been adding new ones to my sandbox before reorganizing... could you help out with Antietam and Vicksburg? I've uploaded two fair use stamps at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps for battles, but I repeatedly fail at Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I've been spending a lot of my editing time on the Thomas Jefferson page, removing unused sources, adding content, citations, clean up, etc. To break the monotony I've been uploading various stamp images and then upgrading the respective stamp images. Anytime you want to see my latest stamp image uploads go to my user page and click on Gallery of uploads in the caption under the stamp image. Will be uploading the Washington Territory and Minnesota Territory images some time today, after I capture, enlarge and tweak the tone and clarity with my trusty ole photo editor, Btw, did you see my message left on the Territories of the United States talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. Yes, but the territories article may not be analogous to the United States, since about a third of the U.S. territories page is charts..., I thought I'd wait to see what the crew there had to say first. I'd still like to launch the U.S. territories on stamps after a little more work.
I've now collected over sixty stamps for the U.S. territories and settlement sandbox, but some resorting is in order, and some narrative needs to be completed. Is there something I can do in my initial uploads to improve quality? I'm going from .tiff to .jpeg to make the files smaller...
At the USPS website, Uses not requiring permission, it advises, fair usage includes, "Noncommercial, educational uses limited to teaching, scholarship, and research. " , -- doesn't Wikipedia qualify? --that the only qualification is that "users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, and include language such as: "© United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.""
I did not know to include the two caveats in my previous upload tries. But I noticed the Luis Marin stamp at Wikimedia Commons was uploaded by someone using the cyrillic alphabet, claiming USPD origin, even though it was issued under the USPS. I did not use that image in my "Puerto Rico on Stamps" new section at "Puerto Rico".
My Togo stamp is being challenged at Wikimedia Commons for deletion [3] -- the Emancipation Proclamation I uploaded for Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps from the National Postal Museum is only 51 years old... I don't think it can stay up, since the French have a limit of 70 years, and I haven't found Togo postal regulations in English. In the old days, I'd just call someone at the Togo Embassy, or email them from work, whether in DC or NYC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've made reference to the USPS site in the attempt to justify 'fair usage', but unfortunately it fell on ultra opinionated ears whose approach to fair use policy was almost robotic. Anyways, I've been going through my stamp collections again, which, aside from stamp albums, consists of cigar boxes and boxes of stamps. Lot's of mixtures I've yet to fully inspect. Here's another territory stamp you might want to use. Indiana Territory. I've been busy today and haven't gotten around to editing and uploading the others stamps yet, but I will shortly. Probably tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
Minnesota Territory
Issue of 1949
Indiana Territory
Issue of 1950
Washington Territory
Issue of 1953
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful. I will switch them out into the article.

I was successful with Antietam battle yesterday, referencing the guideline from the USPS "Fair use exception" for noncommercial purposes... It says, Users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, ... [and use language like] ... © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved., so in the source box, I placed " United States Postal Service®, © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved." On the fourth try, success. But because there is no feedback, I do not know if that was what reviewers were waiting for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: If the stamp was issued before 1978, it came from the U.S. Post Office, not the USPS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We're good. I may have overlooked the second Marquette - explorer stamp, but I've collected almost all related to U.S. territories, settlement, founders and explorers -- the data base of sixty-odd stamps for "U.S. territories on postage stamps" to date is pre-1978.
I held up on any more uploads in U.S. territories project until a routine for fair usage is figured out. In January 1978 there is a Capt. James Cook exploring Hawaii, 2008-20010 Flags of our Nation series have five territory flags: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands... so there is more than the stamps I have in hand to feature later on --- based on the leads in the Scott Specialized Catalogue. There is still a couple day's work for some more narrative and organization to do before launch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I find myself slowly getting back into philately around here. I just uploaded a hi-res image of the Leif Erikson stamp. You can view it at my 'Gallery of Uploads'. Check it out in full view. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts appreciated in Talk:United States[edit]

Hello, I see you have been active today. It would be nice if you contributed any thoughts, concerns or approval to the final proposal for the Cold War section. There were a total of 3 proposals (one initially from me and two alternate from VictorD7) and after a little more discussion we came up with a final draft combining our concerns which is the fourth/last one. There is also the trimming of the Contemporary history section below that. Even though it's already short I still wanted it to conform with the "Big Picture" formula we have agreed on. Me, Victor and Philpill are the only ones who contributed thoughts so far, and even if you just commented that you agree with the proposals, it would look better if more than 2-3 people contributed to give an impression of consensus so I can go ahead with implementation. Cadiomals (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on stamps[edit]

I moved your section in Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico on stamps as it is really more suitable for a topical article and didn't belong where it was. In particular, the stamp images were not fair use for the article subject and would probably have been deleted eventually, whereas they are fair use in a topical article. I expect you will want to expand the new article to include more stamps which could include PR themed stamps from other countries. Have you considered using a gallery rather than a table to display the images? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. stamps were recommended to be placed at Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico by a consensus at Talk:Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States. How are not U.S. stamps commemorating Puerto Rico a part of Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico?
The only other stamps are Spanish colonial stamps jointly issued at Cuba and Puerto Rico during Spanish colonial times, which is less than the scope of the subject article, Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico. Please offer some sort of explanation for arbitrarily removing conceptually half (U.S.) of its "postage stamps and postal history" and leaving half (Spanish) without discussion. Wikipedia has sources showing Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, organized, unincorporated territory of the United States, that is the consensus of scholarship.
I will procede by linking the new article into the Puerto Rico article, but some explanation in the context of the week-long consensus building there would be nice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I admit I was not aware of the discussion but the content is a topical subject, not about modern stamps OF Puerto Rico (for which there are none as you say). That discussion should have taken place in the Philately Project. You are now free to expand the article as much as you like and to include other countries too if you wish. Importantly, the stamps you included under fair use were not under a valid rationale as they are not essential to a discussion of the postage stamps and postal history OF Peurto Rico, they merely illustrate topics ABOUT Puerto Rico and therefore may have been deleted. They are valid fair use on the new article. I would have thought that you would welcome this new article? I put the rationale for the changes here and in the edit summaries. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with just taking it up to the incorporation into the U.S. if that is as far as it goes, but if you want to take it further you need the post incorporation postal history as content as there won't be any PR stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Why yes I am pleased the work is not lost. In some way, there is strictly no postage stamp OF Puerto Rico, only of Spain and of the United States. The place never obtained independence. As a territory it enjoys a population larger than 20 states, even with half of all self-identified "Puerto Ricans" on the mainland --- and it is home to a fierce local pride, as you might have gathered.
Back to philately, I am interested in starting an article, U.S. territories on stamps. It looks at U.S. national boundaries, insular territories, states from states, eastern growth, western growth and explorers, Please give a look-see at User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S.Territories on postage stamps , I would welcome your input. I've been adding free use stamps to Explorer biography articles. Thanks in advance.
January, 1978 there is a commemorative to explorer Captain Cook Issue landing at Hawaii. -- which cannot be admitted anywhere but on a mainspace article page, to my understanding.
On another matter, there is a free use U.S. stamp on Emancipation Proclamation from 1963 which can be used as an alternate at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Less graceful than the Togo stamp, it will serve the purpose in the event the Togo stamp cannot be accepted. Thanks for your patience in any event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, we need more good topical articles here. I will comment in more detail later. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting article. There is unlimited potential for topical articles here of the form "XXXX on stamps" though it is always possible somebody might challenge them as out of scope as not encyclopaedic. Regarding the Captain Cook stamp, if you find out where the original image (looks like an engraving) is from you could argue that it is out of copyright and what they have done with it (changing colour and adding text) doesn't reach the threshold of originality, you could then upload it to Commons on a PD OLD tag. If you argue it is fair use the test is harder, it has to be essential to the article. We generally try to avoid using fair use images where possible. They often are challanged or reduced in size. The images in the PR article are much stronger from the point of view of fair use now, but you may still find somebody challenges them, and indeed we shouldn't fill a whole article with fair use images if the article doesn't need to exist at all which you could argue is the case for any topical stamps article. Regaring the original PR article, there is still plenty to add on the early stamps used there and about old and modern postal history - rates, routes, airmail, postmarks etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move request[edit]

TVH, opinions are needed at Talk:Leif Ericson -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Image upgrades[edit]

Have just uploaded a better version of these stamps:


More to follow...

-- Gwillhickers (talk)

Thanks as always. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stamp description and info[edit]

Hi TVH. Just some advice. Noticed that you've been placing the wrong or inadequate info in the stamp's description page sometimes. Take the File:San Juan 1971 U.S. stamp.1.jpg for example. In the Source field you put Arago: people, postage & the post. but didn't mention the U.S. Post office; In the Author field you put National Postal Museum, which is not the author -- the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is the author, and in this case, the designer, or 'author', is Walter Brooks. When the name of the actual stamp designer is not known, just noting the Bureau' is well enough. Also, while you're doing a great job providing the history behind the stamp, you might want to offer more information about the stamp itself whenever possible. (e.g. issued in sheets of fifty, with an initial printing of 130 million.) Remember, most of your readers will be stamp collectors, and they'd welcome this information as well as the history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fixable right? I could go back onto the stamp page at Wikimedia commons and correct the stamps I mislabeled NPM vs. Bureau of Engraving and Printing?
I have no problem going back and adding to information for the interested reader...I started to note that issues came out in different numbers...and took interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The 55 odd stamps in the U.S. territories on stamps category I uploaded mistakenly have been corrected to show the Bureau as author. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a few of the corrections myself when I upgraded some of the images. Yes, to edit the image info, click on the given image and then click on the Summary section below the image. In the mark up you will see description=, source= and author=, with the information following the equals sign. Just edit the info like you would any other markup and save. Easy stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The best of Wikipedia is collaborative. thanks. Please note the discussion below with Philafrenzy on categorization...I would appreciate any insight. Based on his direction, I propose to launch into a categorization and clean up into subcategories for "History of the United States on stamps" -- I'd also like to put together an exhaustive category of "U.S. trains on stamps" next... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States on stamps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert R. Livingston, Roger Williams and Jason Lee (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) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography project[edit]

So many books to read, so little time...
This user is a participant of WikiProject Bibliographies

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Just add your name along with any personal info you like in the Participants section. Then, if you like, add this markup {{User Bibliographies2}} to your user page which will display the above user box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks interesting, but it may be more than I can handle right now. Good to know it's out there. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Images on Commons[edit]

Just a note to say that there is no need to add your US stamp scans to both Stamps and Stamps of the United States. The later is already a sub category of the former and somebody has to go in and remove them from Stamps. Could you correct the ones you have already done? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a logical idea. It assumes each stamp can go into only one subcategory or that each contributor will know all categories each stamp belongs to at the time of the upload, all subcategories are comprehensively made for all time, and no reader need have access to the entire collection with an alternative category in mind before creating a new category. Unfortunately I just followed the previous pattern of duplication found there. Is the ideal is to dial up a category and see no stamps --- only subcategories? Is there a policy reference to that end at Wikimedia Commons that I can refer to? Is that a Philately project?
I am reluctant to start the universal purge on my own, or initiate the innovative policy on my own contributions alone. But of course I will cease and desist at your request, as you have requested the other offenders and they comply. At the time I thought there was some value added to have a comprehensive survey of the larger category and I believed subcategories were for specialty interests as subsets of the larger category, which is another logical alternative to yours.
In the event the policy is adopted universally at Wikimedia Commons, there should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How would you propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons?
How can each subcategory contributor be encouraged to upload into multiple categories? Obviously the stamp of an explorer of New Jersey not only belongs in the 'U.S. territories on stamps' category, it belongs in the New Jersey category and the Explorer category, neither of which presently exists. But unless the image is in the general category, an editor creating the new category will not have access to all the stamps in the data base to draw from, but each subcategory has to be explored before comprehensively sighting the collection. How does that expedite subcategory formation, in such a way that it is a value added to the researcher, not a wiki-imposed restriction to the researcher? Which way of organizing is more open, which is more artificially closed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is not my idea. It's well established that we don't include images in both a sub category and a parent category unless there is a good reason. There would be 10000 stamp scans in Stamps if we did! There may be exceptions but this is not one of them. Just check how the images are currently organised to verify what I say. There probably is a page saying that on Commons but you just have to think of the alternative to see why it makes sense. It would give 20 million images all in one giant top level category. Why do you think there is so little in top level Stamps already? I haven't moved much out of there. Although the more refined categories do tend to hide material, as you suggest, as long as the structure is logical things can usually be found. Things definitely should be in more than one category but usually that is in parallel category trees just as you suggest with the New Jersey stamp.
You can include a US stamp in US Stamps of X year, X on stamps etc, what we don't do is put it in US stamps and Stamps at the same time. I don't make any of this up as I go along you know, it is all agreed by consensus over the years. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed consensus is the way to go, and that everything cannot be done at every level --- it is inherent in the nature of a collaborative project. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a main category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How should we propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know but it is not a bad idea. There may already be a bot or script running that does fix this. The difficulty is that there are exceptions and if you are going to remove categories you need to be sure and that is a judgement that requires the application of the human brain. Some would argue, I expect, that it is better to educate users not to do it in the first place. Try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Community_portal Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be the rationale for our template.
I have removed the "History of the United States on stamps" and "Stamps of the United States", leaving them in "U.S. territories on stamps" from two contributors uploads, File:00Kamehameha.jpg, File:Alaska territory 1937 U.S. stamp.tiff.
  • The best images from Category:Columbian Exposition Issue representing the issue should be taken out of “history of U.S. on stamps” and placed into U.S. territories on stamps, the duplicates left only on "Columbian Exposition", the remainder (cancelled, blocks) removed form "History of the United States on stamps", correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you remind me how to create a separate category:Territories 1937 Issue for the four related stamps? The Jamestown Exposition deserves like treatment. They would not be a subcategory, but a philately independent category akin to Category:Columbian Exposition Issue.
  • The Wikimedia Commons category "Trains on stamps" does not include a subcategory, so there is no link to add more. the sidebar Tools "special pages" is not applicable. On second thought, my interest is primarily "U.S. trains on stamps" as history, and that would be a subcategory of "History of the United States on stamps", correct? Thanks in advance for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed the categories on the two you mentioned to what I would say are the correct categories. The idea is that each category addresses a different aspect of the image, i.e. it's a stamp of the US from a particular year and also depicts a particular subject and also is printed by a particular printer etc. Each is a separate category tree. None is an immediate sub category of the other (they may be under a common parent category somewhere else). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Galleries vs. Tables[edit]

I forgot to come back to you about this. Check out Help:Gallery tag and the packed mode in use on Underprint. There may not be an ideal solution but your articles are going to get very long if you only include a couple of images per table. Hope this helps. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks promising. The table, also recommended by a collaborating editor, allows larger images as an alternative to what I began using, the double or triple images aligned right and related text left. This is a third alternative to explore. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In cases where there are only two stamp images used in a table or gallery I would simply stack them into a 'double image' which you are familiar with and place them to the right or left. If the sections and text become crowded and sandwiched together simply place the {{clear}} template at the end of the section. If this results with a few lines of white space at the end of the section that's okay. This is better than the sections all crammed together. White space occurs normally in printed media, and rightly so. Of course there are practical limits to everything but a couple of lines of white space won't be an 'issue' with most editors. If some individual should have an issue with 'clear' and it means they expect you to sandwich the sections and text back together, simply invoke the Ignore all rules policy since you are improving the format and readability of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on Stamps[edit]

Somebody has removed your non-free images, I assume because either they thought they were not essential to the article or there was no critical commentary about them. I think I warned you that these images were vulnerable to this sort of criticism though I must say I thought you would be fairly safe in that article. You could revert the deletion and argue that the images are essential because you discuss them in the article. As I have said, we really should be avoiding copyright images if at all possible. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Puerto Rico on stamps, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All persons pictured are dead. Vandalism is frowned upon at Wikipedia. desist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't revert it again. You will get blocked. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Vandals should be reported of course. I've never done that before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not vandalism though I understand why it seems that way to you. Read my message further up. Non-free (copyrighted) images are always a problem as all our content is supposed to be available for any sort of reuse and copyrighted materials don't fit with that mission. I have had several of mine deleted for the same reason. Put a message on the user's talk page that you wish to discuss the matter. Generally, if I were you, I would try to use only out of copyright images or you will face this sort of battle all the time. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the sort of battle vandals always present, unreasoned, unsourced disruption of the purpose of the article. All persons pictured are dead. Puerto Rico on stamps pictures Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans on stamps. The copyrighted materials meet the standards of fair use on Wikipedia, although not Wikimedia Commons, that is what the template at Wikipedia explains at the stamp upload, a template not available at Wikimedia Commons. I suppose there could just be good faith confusion on the part of Werieth. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, read WP:NPA. Fair use means nothing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a far more strict policy on non-free media WP:NFCC. If you continue to abuse non-free media I will take this to ANI and request that you be blocked unit you demonstrate that you understand our policy on non-free content. If you want to discuss this we can do that either here or on the article talk page, but the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
VirginiaHistorian: you need to talk about the image in detail in order to justify including it as a copyright image. If you expand the text in this way you could then try adding them back. It's not enough just to give basic details of the stamp and what is on it. It needs critical or evaluative discussion of the image. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And that needs to be sourced critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was, otherwise you could use free stamps to illustrate the article instead. Werieth (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Commentary to be forthcoming. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States after 1978 and that is shown in part by Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans pictured on USPS stamps since 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what ping and ping again means. Is there an example of USPS licensing appropriately used at Wikipedia? Something that shows critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was.
There are stamps after 1978 which show Puerto Rican U.S. citizens to be a part of the United States in politics, baseball, literature and acting. They are honored in great American issues since 1978. Puerto Ricans voted in referendum to be admitted as a state, and the territorial legislature has applied for statehood. They are Americans.
The flags of the territories are featured in "Flags of our nation", meaning U.S. citizens in territories are honored by Joint Resolution of Congress picturing their flags in precisely the same way as citizens in states are pictured. They are not inferior, their territorial representation in Congress has more privileges attached than the territorial representation of the 19th century for places which subsequently became states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted image deletions[edit]

TVH, I would recommend restoring the above images to their respective articles so they are not orphaned and eligible for deletion on that technicality and as I've said restore them as much as needed if deleted again. It's time to be bold. This all out assault on NFC stamp images is ridiculous, unwarranted and even malicious. Again, no one's interests have been compromised. THIS is the primary reason why there are fair use guidelines i.e.to protect WP legally and to not compromise the copyright holder's interest, and this has not occurred, because as you know, USPS allows their images to be used, per the discussions. Also, no one has articulated any actual policy violation regarding opinions on critical commentary. Altogether no one has cited any clear cut fair use violation, and all the criticism mostly lends it self to critical commentary, which is easily dealt with if it has to be. See my last post. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And Ill note such actions are likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing and violating WP:NFCC. Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy, several users myself and at least one other person familiar with stamps have provided guidance on how you need to proceed. Re-adding the files without providing sourced third party critical commentary and asserting the importance of the specific stamps will not end well for you. If you want to start making progress and stop going around in circles Ill be glad to ensure that you are going in the correct direction. Werieth (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me. Kindly refrain from lies and slander here at Wikipedia. I have no dislike for policy and have repeatedly made reference to it to justify the inclusion of the images that have been unduly deleted without any discussion first. You have misrepresented the policy entirely and on that basis have been disruptive, not to mention dishonest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Its not lies or slander. How is File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg critical to the understanding of Puerto Rico on stamps when the only reference is Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010 ? That comes no where close to meeting the fairly high bar for inclusion of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Werieth, above, in full view of your response you said: Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy. Again, you try to substitute opinion not only for policy but for facts. Again, kindly refrain from asserting lies and slander and confine your comments to rational discussion. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you failed to understand policy doesnt mean that I am misrepresenting it, being dishonest or disruptive. Kindly remember WP:NPA further attacks will be escalated. Werieth (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are misrepresenting the policy which would permit USPS fair use licensed images in topical articles. You insist by your own interests, a POV that there be only single stamp articles, where the stamps alone by themselves are significant. A topical article takes a significant topic and explores the multiple commemoratives a society has deemed notable and for what reasons. These are not to be dismissed as collections of stamps in the chronological sequence of their issue, without topical focus and analysis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Topical articles[edit]

@Werieth, the commentary available at the Smithsonian Institute's National Postal Museum has been my primary source of critical analysis of each stamp. The analysis in my three authored pieces exceeded those of any other Wikipedia article noted USPS fair use license to date. I have extended the commentary from USPS source on a stamp at Puerto Rico on stamps for Julia de Burgos, a famous Puerto Rican poet and author celebrated as an American citizen as all Puerto Ricans are by birth. Government sources on government affairs are widely used at Wikipedia. The importance of the specific stamps is their expression of important cultural icons, defined by Joint Resolution of Congress to initiate the commemoration object of the stamps.
I am happy to follow your guidance in the case of Julia de Burgos and with others as time permits. This is important enhancement of the article from its stub beginnings, which I am committed to do. But again, I note the commentary on each of the three articles I contributed to is greater in total and more for each stamp than is found elsewhere on Wikipedia for USPS licensed images. Again, I believe I could profit from additional examples of USPS fair use images used in WP articles. But removing images from the best examples of commentary and context available to date seems disruptive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure we are on the same page, WP:NFCI. "Acceptable use. The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Images. Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content.,, 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it."
In the article Puerto Rico on stamps the USPS commemorated the Puerto Rican poet Julia de Burgos on a postage stamp. The USPS fair use license applies to an image of the commemorative on Julia de Burgos identifying the stamp. It is not for the purposes of the biographical article Julia de Burgos depicting Ms. Burgos. If the image of the postage stamp depicted an ink well to represent the poet, the image of the entire postage stamp would still be used because it meets the NFCI standard #3 for non-free image use on Wikipedia, "For identification of the stamp or currency". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That particular example that you cite, and have already been told, applies to the usage of the stamp in the article about the stamp. What the USPS says or doesnt say about the usage of their files means very little beyond the fact that the files are either under a free or non-free license. In this case its a non-free license. The usage of the USPS and National Postal Museum are primary sources, and as such cannot really be used to provide critical commentary. Critical commentary comes from independent reliable third party sources. Also Ill note that if a particular stamp isnt notable enough for its own article what makes it critical to the understanding of the meta article? Werieth (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Werieth, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, so here also, you are misrepresenting affairs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp proves you wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Breast cancer research stamp has text on the stamp equivalent to that now provided for Julia de Burgos at Puerto Rico on stamps. The rest is about cancer research, where the stamp surplus money goes, not about the stamp. That is, the commentary for Julia de Burgos meets the standard set for stamp commentary found in Breast cancer research stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know of such a page. TVH, perhaps this is taking it to the limit, I don't know for sure. Is the stamp in of itself notable enough to warrant its own article? Have more people admired and purchased this stamp then have people who have bought a given video game for which there is an article for? Every time the USPS comes out with a stamp, many millions of people across the country buy it. Can this be said for all the video games for which there are articles for? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that TVH had created the page, which has been around since 2007 with no issues of the type we typically see from MASEM and company. Wonder why they haven't attacked this stamp, and page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You completely missed my point here and everywhere else. I never said the Breast cancer research stamp page is bad. In fact, that's a great use of a stamp where the stamp itself is clearly notable (not so much for its art but fore what the stamp was made for, to promote breast cancer research and return funds back to that). The stamp clearly passed WP:N, and per clearly meeting NFCI#3, using the non-free stamp to identify the stamp is fine. And whil e the de Burgos stamp itself is not notable, the text added that talks about how the illustration of the stamp alludes to her poetry is at least sufficient to assume on good faith that NFCC#8 is met. Note that "millions of people use the stamp" is not a measure of notability per WP:N, so most stamps and stamp series are not notable, though topical articles are reasonable. And you need to drop the stick about video games or personally attacking my own interests. WP is not paper so we can cover any topic that is notable, and we have to consider the use of non-free media across all topics equally. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

  • In response to my mistaken claim, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, you pointed out the page in question -- with one haughty sentence. You didn't go on to make any point. Once again, you misrepresent affairs. Yes, the stamp is notable, and so are most others that commemorate famous people, statehood, etc. Thank you. It is only your opinion that a given stamp may not be as notable, -- and who's yard stick are we using before an image is deleted and/or nominated for deletion on that basis? Yours? You have clearly demonstrated why we need to have a consensus to decide these matters, and not from the usual tag team that spends the bulk of their time trolling around hounding editors on the basis of an opinion about 'notability', critical commentary', etc. These are all ideas that need to be established by an objective consensus when some individual feels it's so bloody urgent to have the image deleted on the spot. --

NPM as third party[edit]

You have already been told -- is not a very collegial turn of phrase. The National Postal Museum is of the Smithsonian Institute. --- The policy applies to all articles, not just the articles of your interest. Topical articles are allowed, just as there are articles on individuals, there are articles on events made up of individuals. It may be that you are only interested in individuals in the Civil War, but the encyclopedia still has an article on the Civil War apart from the individuals. (But all good history is biography in a way.) --- In any case, there are articles about individual stamps, there are articles about topics on stamps, and both may use images of stamps by USPS fair use license according to the plain meaning of the WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The National Postal Museum is a joint venture between the Smithsonian and USPS, which means that they are not a reliable third party source. I have never said that the meta articles are forbidden, in fact I actually have given advice on how to retain a limited number of non-free media in these articles (1-3 images instead of the previous 6). Justification for inclusion of non-free media is fairly high. In this case you are quoting a NFCI phrase outside of context. As it says just a few lines above, all files must meet all points of WP:NFCC in this case that hasnt happened. Werieth, (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Insert : , Werieth, The National Postal Museum is indeed a third party. They are not the ones who designed and printed the stamps, and the organization is staffed by many learned historians and stamp collectors who provide information under the well recognized heading of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Postal Museum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:NFCC in these articles is met more completely and comprehensively than any USPS licensed article example we have before us. Your advice has been followed, as time allows in trying to preserve the orphans you have created without prior discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not advice, its policy and I have cited two articles that have far more justification than any that you have made so far. USPS licensing is meaningless, the files are non-free and are treated as such. NFCC is no where near being met in any of the articles. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you find an article in Wikipedia where you believe it to be so, USPS fair use license appropriately used? You have cited Inverted Jenny which is USPD free use, and an article without an image with less context and analysis than my three contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Breast cancer research stamp is one example that I have already pointed to. Again critical commentary is more than bare facts from the USPS or their museum, it requires third party discussion to be considered critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If there were an article on "Causes on stamps", it would have the essential information of the introduction in the article Breast cancer research stamp, and a link to the more in-depth article for that stamp, and a similarly more abbreviated description and analysis for the other stamps in the topic article. The standard for the topic article will be less than that of an individual stamp article, just as the information on individuals at American Civil War will be less than that of an individual's biography article.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The NPM is a WP:reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Smithsonian Institute affiliation with USPS does not taint it any more than does government grants to Harvard taint the Harvard Business Review as a source. In any case government sources are admitted as reliable sources at Wikipedia. You misrepresent WP:reliable source to suit your own POV against topical philately articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp[edit]

It is a well done article. Is it yours? That's what I would like to grow to as an editor, to be able to command that kind of depth with some facility one day. If I can keep this dispute from getting personal, after a dispute resolution or two which I believe we need to have now for clarification sake, I'll beef up the articles and then reimport the images without disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats not my article. Feel free to "Beef up" the articles and provide more information and justification, but before you re-add the files let me know. Ill take a look and give some feedback. One other angle you can look into and see if there is enough material is how the portraile of PR has changed over time on stamps. If you can provide enough critical commentary and justification I don't see an issue with the article eventually containing 1-3 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So one of the items for dispute resolution would be the interpretation about what "limited" can mean. Limited picturing of a stamp issue series, limited as a proportion of free use stamp images in the article. It seems you would have it limited to a few stamps per article, regardless of the scope of USPS stamps on the subject (five territory flags of 55 issue), or regardless of how limited the topic is within each USPS issue (four battles of 30-odd Civil War commemorative stamps). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

test ping[edit]

@ @TheVirginiaHistorian: This is a test. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure you can ping yourself. Werieth (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Werieth: Thanks. Did it work? Seems the courteous thing to do, especially at an insert during an extended discussion. I notice also that the @ sign is generated with the template, so another one is redundant. Just another dimension to the hobby here. Thanks (blush). And I am going to add the links to the USPS or Arago pages for stamps which cannot get fair use license images. as you suggested....sometimes NPM only features a stamp as "Scott catalogue" without any description, rats...
On another matter, how do I set up a new Wikimedia Commons Category, 'Trans-Mississippi Exposition Issue' so I have a place for the mint stamp images available for upload from NPM? What is there now, in the gallery 'Stamps of the United States', seems what was available from the uploader's private collection, and I would like to provide uploads of complete sets for Jamestown Exposition, Louisiana Purchase Exposition, etc... in one searchable place for each series. Do you have any suggestions for naming conventions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah the ping worked, I am not familiar enough with stamps to give good advice on the naming, but I would include the year, series and stamp name in some manor. Werieth (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Re: Sources. In cases where the NPS doesn't offer sourcing info for a given stamp there is, as you know, Scott's Stamp catalog, and better still Scott's Specialized catalog. There is also Mystic Stamps' free catalog, issued I believe twice a year. It often has lot's of info on various stamps. Notable stamp collector/historian Bob Allen's 1847USA web site also offers basic reliable sourcing for a lot of issues. New issues I suspect will be more of a challenge. Happy hunting. I'll keep an eye peeled also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page[edit]

TVH, I realize that a lot of the debate about NFC, stamps, etc, has found its way here. If you feel a given debate is better served on a different talk page, you could simply cut/paste the discussion to a more appropriate location and leave a note/link to that effect here. At least I won't object. Hope we are not crowding you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: The gist seems to be narrowing down to fair use in the topical pages. Four observations seem to work in concert: a. Stamps are widely circulated public media, descriptions of them can be derived from governmental (USPS) and foundation (Smithsonian Institute) sources. b. They are notable culturally by dint of their genesis through a Congressional Joint Resolution, and
c., if a stamp image is used as content under the heading of a greater subject, e.g.Puerto Rico on stamps, it doesn't necessarily have to be notable in its own right: Notablility : The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. The stamp doesn't have to be notable by itself to be used in an article, and has no bearing on NFCC to begin with.
d. Visual information is processed differently than textual information, they are not equivalent, "a picture is worth a thousand words". In the case of an topical article titled "[subject] on stamps", the primary information to be conveyed is based on visual acquisition of images of the entire stamps. Textual description alone is neither equivalent nor sufficient for the purpose of the topical philately article.
It may be useful to make a cogent restatement of the argument and start a new subsection at WP:Media copyright questions, perhaps, with a non-provocative header to get away from the procedural issues. "Topical articles and USPS fair use".
But the issue of critical commentary remains to be fully answered, it seems fame or adverse notoriety is misunderstood as analysis. And analysis of the event pictured is dismissed out of hand, leaving the art critique as the sole standard. How to explain there are forests as topics as well as trees as stamps?
e. But the topical article takes the focus out of the image itself and into the context of the person or event pictured. That is, the critical commentary of a Keegan on the American Civil War battle is as applicable for the context in the topical article as that of an art curator's analysis of the art reproduced on the stamp commemorating the Battle of Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would also add that the stamp is notable (not that it always must be, per notability of content) simply because it is a U.S. postage stamp. Like currency, it is in public circulation. Many people ask for the specific commemorative stamp when at the P.O.. Re:Critical commentary. Certain individuals need to stop treating this like rocket science. As I maintained before, all that need be said is that e.g. 'A given person' was noted for 'this deed and that' and was honored with a commemorative stamp on a given date or anniversary. If you can add more to that, this is fine, but not required. Unless the critical commentary is completely off topic or missing altogether, opting to delete these images on such opinionated basis should been done with discussion and consensus beforehand. Deleting such images in such an arrogant and self-appointed fashion has created nothing but animosity among many dozens of editors trying to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
see wp:Non-free content review#USPS template new subsection, WMF mission. Coat of Many Colours has another take on educational mission, countered by Masem. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States[edit]

So you have no opinion on any of the proposed image changes/removals? I know you know it's there but you have yet to contribute your input. You might not have a vested interest in any of the images and you might not want to dive in to the crap-show of a discussion there but if you could just quickly contribute your opinion to them (what should stay, what should/should not be changed) it would be appreciated since the more editors give their input the faster we will come to some sort of consensus on at least some images, and the faster we can move on from those issues. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Looking for an appropriate barnstar I instead found this page.

BoNM USA Hires.png The USA Barnstar of National Merit
Louisiana Purchase7 1903 Issue-10c-crop.jpg
For your enduring efforts in creating, building and composing the Territories of the United States on stamps article.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a lead from your airmail contribution, and added statehood airmails for Alaska and Hawaii. With Arago links for the original 13 ratifiers to the Constitution and Utah statehood, (Utah does have a territory commemorative), all 50 states and five territories (links) are accounted for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)/Archives/
minkeepthreads=4 minarchthreads=1 format= Y/F

}}


Another One...[edit]

Thank God I found another unreconstructed Southerner in this den of Politically Correct liberal wackos.Avazina —Preceding undated comment added 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC).

Well, I'm not exactly "unreconstructed" in the sense of refusing to take an oath of allegiance to the United States Government. I served active duty as a United States Marine Corps officer. I am at the service of the US President at his discretion for the rest of my life according to the laws of my country; I take my oath seriously. -- TVH
What you may read between the lines are the echos of my Virginia family. I have a cultural affinity for consensus versus the confrontational. I've read enough and lived long enough to know there lots of sides to a story, and I for one want to know more of them.
For instance, it has only been over the last ten years or so that I read enough 'unit histories' to know that NO Confederate diary says, 'tomorrow I know I will die. the richest slave-holding man in the county will be richer when this is all over.' It is true that the Civil War was about slavery in a macro economic and nationally political sense. But it does not explain why men fought on. 'Tomorrow I know I will die. When Joe gets home, he will take care of you and the children.' That is a different reality, a different history. If we write a narrative with one eye on the Confederate soldier, even as we look at charts of GNP, and respect the runaway slave in Union blue, we will have a different tone, a different voice. - TVH

Image tagging for File:670px-Flag of Virginia svg.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:670px-Flag of Virginia svg.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. For more information on using images, see the following pages:* Wikipedia:Image use policy* Wikipedia:Image copyright tags Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

aaaaarrrrrgggg I was in a sandbox, its from Wiki Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg . I last left this in punch cards and (no suffix) FORTRAN. Bill Gates made everything too user-friendly. Curses, Bill. - TVH.
This is one of the reasons I hate bots on Wikipedia.... they don't have any sort of human emotion or reason behind what they do other than their pre-programmed instructions. That certainly isn't friendly to new users like yourself.
I have nominated this file for "speedy deletion" as it duplicates existing content on Wikipedia. If you need some help in terms of how to use Wikipedia, I would certainly be willing to help you out. I cut my programming teeth on punch tape, cards, and programming in COBOL and FORTRAN, so I do know where you are coming from here. The Wikipedia community is a bit bewildering with a bunch of youngsters that seem to be in charge. To let you know, there are also a few of us here that are a bit older too that try to keep these young ones in shape and to keep their hormones under control. I'm not always successful but I sometimes do make a difference. You can too.
I hope this doesn't discourage you from further contributions to Wikipedia. If you stick with it, the contributions you can make here are very satisfying and impact far more people than you could possibly imagine. You will also get to meet some very interesting people in the process of contributing here. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee's at-large congressional district[edit]

Do you have a copy of the Martis book? I don't, but I've seen it and I know it's a great resource. If you do have it, can you check something for us: when did Tennessee's at-large congressional district have six seats? I'm not sure about 1813-1823. Can you confirm if these seats were at-large or by district. Thanks.—Markles 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

yes...I'll try to get back to you tomorrow with the look-up.
There is a copy in lots of county libraries, and community college media centers. I believe that it is on enough 'recommended' lists, even though it is out of print, that if yours does not have a copy, you can probably ask for a to be procured (used) by the one nearest you and they might just use their shrinking funds to get one...my county library accepts emails for requests...as one of my bosses in finance once said, 'If you don't ask, you don't get kissed.'...
  • I have shamelessly asked for monographs that I could not possibly have afforded myself and they have come through for me, 2-4 volumes a year...basically if it is reviewed by an history journal, the New York Times Book Review and the Washington Post, my county buys it for me, and deposits it in the branch nearest my home. It's my birthday four times a year. -TVH.

Tennessee at-large answer[edit]

Martis distinguishes four kinds of election methods in the states (Introduction Section 2, p.6-7 and Section p.59)

(1) Single Member Districts are denoted with a number in their geographic outline, such as 1, 2, 3.
(2) Plural Congressional Districts are artificially divided into subsections geographically, and labeled such as 6a, 6b, 6c.
(3) General Ticket Districts are state-wide slates of a single party tickets. Representative districts are labeled ‘GT’, state maps show diagonals with A, B, C etc as a place-holder on the map for each seat. The largest number of votes for a party seats the entire ticket.
(4) At-Large Districts are state-wide elections of individual candidates, labeled ‘AL’ within the state boundaries. If there are three seats to fill, the three candidates with the most votes state-wide are elected.

He notes that General Ticket districts had the political effect to “ensure election of an entire state delegation by one dominant party”. At-Large districts were mostly used in the Congress following reapportionment, where they might give advantage to a dominant party, or not disrupt incumbents by mutual agreement.

Tennessee had three General Ticket districts in the 8th Congress, 1803-1805, as did NH, CT, RI, NJ and GA.
There were six TN representatives in the apportionment for the 13th Congress, 1813-1815, all Single Member Districts; although there is still territory in grey, which I know to be Cherokee lands in the southeast along the Georgia border, but I do not know of the others.

Tennessee will continue with single member districts for the subsequent Congresses. The 43rd had a tenth district At-Large.

I did find that in the 73d Congress of 1933-1935, Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri used General Ticket Districting. (Not Tennessee.)
This was right about the time of the transfer of control in the Democratic Party from the Martin organization to the Byrd organization (No, sir, we don’t say ‘machine’ in the Old Dominion). Minnesota also had General Ticket Districting, but somehow ended up electing Representatives from three different parties. Missouri’s Tom Pendergast was expanding out of the family base in Kansas City to win statewide and federal elections... –TVH TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

link to Commons gallery[edit]

You may enjoy my ACW gallery at Commons. smile
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

April Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The April 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.

 

Secession in the United States[edit]

Since I have deferred to your judgment and you hold my proxy, you should be aware that another editor is falsifying sources. The sources either do not support the statements, or only in the most trivial way. E.g., see footnotes 15 and 16. One could find other examples of plagiarism, and past complaints, if so inclined. The captioned page is in your capable hands. I have enjoyed working with you.74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry the discussion moved, so quickly. I will look forward to your future postings when you find the time. Enjoy your time with your family. With highest regards from a descendant of the Pendletons,74.192.7.135 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The May 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) 02:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The June 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) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski[edit]

Hi, I've left comments on this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. regards Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The July 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) 14:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The September 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) 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
TVH is a major contributor to the excellence of the United States Constitution article. Through a series of carefully crafted tweaks and major edits, the article is moving forward to (once again) receive a well-deserved WP:FA designation thanks to TheVirginiaHistorian's efforts. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a slice of pie.[edit]

A very beautiful Nectarine Pie.jpg For your excellent work on the Constitution of the United States. Well done. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee[edit]

Thanks for your comments re the restored pictures. Their deletion appears to have been a bit of thoughtless vandalism of the drive-by variety and nothing more has been said. Your tidying up of sections of the text itself has made a significant improvement to the article. Regards Buistr (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there TheVirginiaHistorian, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:TheVirginiaHistorian.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.
  • If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} The :File:03-rawls-225.jpg | image was taken directly from Rawls WP article. Its a shame the download turns out to be non-free. The photographer stood philosopher John Rawls in the same pose as Machiavelli's famous portrait. Striking. Could it be only a format error that the bot did not pick up? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha! Retracing my steps, I found the image description clearly marked with a big red C. I missed it in my narrowed frame which I set up on my desktop to expedite copying image file names. The editor uploading the image still has not identified the copyrighted source, and I still will not be able to use that image from that source on my User page. rats. This case is similar to that of several prominent academics.
(a) When can editors download newspaper photos of publicly prominent personae by fair usage? (b) Are the photos of faculty, available online at university websites, or in out-of-date university publications online, fair usage at Wikipedia sites? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
stumbling through linked related articles, such as Wikipedia:Granting work into the public domain, I don't see publishing for indiscriminately distributed consumption as a qualifying for fair usage anywhere. Help. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
File:03-rawls-225.jpg is correctly marked as non-free; the source page here has a copyright notice at the bottom. So under Wikipedia's rules, it can be used in the John Rawls article provided that the paperwork is filled in on the file page, but it cannot be used anywhere else. So, I'm afraid, the bot was correct in removing it from your user page. See Wikipedia:NFCC#9. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good. My second posting is correct. Check the box. Per the third posting, I need help. (a) When can editors download newspaper photos of publicly prominent personae by fair usage? (b) Are the photos of faculty, available online at university websites, or in out-of-date university publications online, fair usage at Wikipedia sites? This is a tough one, beyond my first twenty minute search. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

a) We can hardly ever use non-free pictures from anywhere - whether it is from a newspaper or not. Unless a specific newspaper picture is somehow 'free' (e.g. very old, so public domain) then very tight criteria exist for its use. In particular, we cannot use it if a free equivalent is available, or could be created - which rules out almost all pictures of living people (because we could go take their photo). Rare exceptions are made when the photo itself is somehow "special" - of historical significance - e.g. tank man or Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Also it must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". For more on that, see WP:NONFREE and for any specific case, just ask on WP:MCQ.
b) As above; which means, if the building still exists, then no (because we could take a new picture of it). If it's been knocked down or changed significantly, then there is some chance we might be able to use it. Again, in specific cases, it'd be best to ask on WP:MCQ.
Copyright is an enormously complicated thing, but the primary goal of Wikipedia is to provide free content for unlimited distribution; each non-free image reduces that possibility, so we do need to take great care about it. Hope that helps. Use a fresh {{helpme}} for any follow-up / other questions. Thanks. Chzz  ►  15:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. the rules are the rules. or politics ain't beanbag. or something. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee ii[edit]

Thank you for your reasonable comments on Robert E. Lee's talk page regarding his wife's daguerreotype. It's good to know that there are Wikipedians who have knowledge of the subject. For a second I thought that Lee's article was a no man's land. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have an article about Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias on the FAC right now. He has certain similarities with Lee's life (if we ignore some big differences). I've learned one thing when writing articles: keep the sections short and make every picture be important. Lee's article is overy detailed and seems to be a collection of different views of several editors. In sum, it's a mess. I tried to share some thoughts on Confederate States of America and tried to suggest editors to take a look at another article I wrote: Empire of Brazil. No one bothered and that article is equally a mess. And that's unfortunate since both articles have enough space to evolve into possible FAs. --Lecen (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Do you know who are the main contributors to Robert E. Lee's article? Are they still active? Is there any editor there who usually behaves like a troublemaker? I'm asking you all this is because I'm seriously thinking of taking the article to FA level. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I only began participating in RELee to add something to his early Confederate career. I had expanded Battle of Fort Pulaski to Good Article, and found in research there that the contemporary 1862 newspapers and later Lost Cause memoir wars had the history very wrong. Much Confederate military activity is reported only in the Navy Records ... long story. Amazingly, Lee and Olmstead and Tattnall all performed efficiently, credibly and honorably in their own estimation, in the eyes of their comrades, and by the judgment of their opponents, both at the time and thereafter, regardless of the surrounding hysteria found in belles lettres. So I then contributed a paragraph or two to the RELee article.
My most recent reading into the Civil War is Joseph T. Glatthaar's "General Lee's Army: from victory to collapse" ISBN 978-0-684-82787-2. Most of the volume can enhance the Army of Northern Virginia article. For the Lee article, Glatthaar brings important scholarly insight into Lee as a commander of men encamped, on the march and in combat. He taught at the U.S. Army War College, Army Command and General Staff College, USMA, West Point, and the University of Houston. At book publishing, 2008, he was chair of Curriculum of Peace, War and Defense, UNC, Chapel Hill.
From everything I've read, RE Lee is worthy of a Featured Article. I would like to help out some, though as an oldie-newbie I have a double handicap. My most recent contributions are to the U.S. Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. If I were to write the article, I would not waiste any time detailing his strategies or how he won battles. This is one good mistake I often find on articles about U.S. Civil War military leaders. In the end, the article becomes huge, unreadable and a mess. I'll leave open to anyone who has the interest and desire to create and expand an article like "Military career of Robert E. Lee" or similar. Since I'm Brazilian and I'm not tainted by U.S. Civil War prejudices commonly found on Americans (which is something quite common in any controversial historical subject) I believe I'd be able to write something neutral, that will allow readers to see Lee as a man: a highly capable field commander, honourable, owner of slaves, etc... I'd still like to see you review the article once it's finish and share your thoughts so that it can be further improved. I will use three books as the main sources:
Lee (an Abridgment of 4 Volume Set in 1 volume), by Douglas Southall Freeman
Robert E. Lee: A Biography, by Emory M. Thomas
Robert E. Lee: An Album, by Emory M. Thomas (I'll use to add good photos to the article)
I won't be able to start working on it right now. Probably in January or February, but I'd still like to see you giving your imput. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Constitution[edit]

Part A
  1. The quotes should NOT be curly. The minus sign in my edit summaries means "remove".
  2. Not my place to say, though I would personally prefer to avoid such abbreviations.
Part B

(b) See WP:LQ.

--Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 7 December 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) 02:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In United States Constitution, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Convention (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) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --S. Rich (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

US Constitution suggestions[edit]

Two suggestions: 1. I think citation 170 fits better in the abc note section. 2. You might use the {rp} method of citation rather than the short citations. (Here is a page that explains: Template:Rp.) --S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, pretty soon (ie maybe Tuesday?) I will work on the history section of United States Constitution as per talk page. Just letting you know. If you would like to work on it yourself, please go ahead, otherwise Tuesday I will have a go at it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the point of the history section edit that you propose is to take material with more-than-summary detail and move it to more narrowly focused articles. The intended result would make the "U.S. Constitution" article the center of a web of related subtopics.
If this understanding is correct, yes, of course, please lead on. I'd like to follow behind you just as soon as I learn how to do it properly myself. I'd like to shadow your first few efforts, then join in, if you would check behind me.
My resistance to editing on the U.S. Constitution page has been to capricious blanking my stuff with no discussion, citation or rationale. Also, I did not understand article overall word-length and memory-size restrictions. These made sense to me as soon as I found the applicable WP reference.
As you may see from my recent "Introduction" edits, I believe that there is very much more to do of substance to improve the article, besides the History section length, once it is short enough for a wide range of readers to load it on their computers in the first place ! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited History of the United States Constitution, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas Johnson and Gordon Wood (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) 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Work on US Constitution & related articles[edit]

Human Rights Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Liberty
For excellent contributions on United States Constitution and related articles. Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Excellent work!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Confederate States of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Chattanooga (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) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 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) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

re CSA map[edit]

First of all, thanks for the kind comments, though it really does need some work. It's old and there's a handful of factual errors, though the broad strokes are all accurate. As for why it takes two clicks - to minimize memory usage (on the server to generate thumbnails) and bandwidth (on clients to minimize download time), animated images larger than a certain size don't get animated thumbnails, and this image easily falls above that limit. That's why you don't see it animated in an article, nor in the image page, because that is thumbnailed as well. Only when clicking through to the full version do you get it animated. Your message has reminded me that I should probably work on this more, and make an article for it along the lines of my Territorial evolution of Canada and Territorial evolution of the United States articles, so hopefully in a few weeks all you'll have to do is link to that. It wouldn't hurt to create my own thumbnailed animation as well, omitting details and much of the text. Huh, that's a good idea actually... for a thumbnail you don't need the names in the states, just an explanation of what's happening. --Golbez (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

CSA Virginia/WV edits[edit]

Hi, I looked at your edit and tweaked it a bit, changing "August" to "June". August was when the WV statehood ordinance was passed, and changed "delegates" to voters since it was the May 23 referendum on the ordinance of secession. I haven't looked at the History of Virginia yet, I was going to redo that and the Virginia in the American Civil War sections on West Virginia because they are quite frankly inaccurate in the extreme. For instance, very few people realize of West Virginia's 49 delegates to the Richmond secession convention, while generally voting against the ordinance on April 17, 29 signed the ordinance. You can see the results on the Library of Virginia website here How Virginia Delegates Voted and Signed the Ordinance. Thanks for your help. Dubyavee (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and Exactly. The sense of community existed even in division, a notion of comity which is lost on 21st Century politicos generally. "The War of Brothers" was as real in Virginia as it was in the more celebrated divisions among Tennessee. CS General Lee's cousin US Admiral Lee commanded the South Atlantic Union blockade, just for starters. It is hard to comprehend the depth of that American tragedy, but I take exception to triumphalism on either side. I think that the tone of historical treatment ought to approximate Grant's Memoirs that were co-written with Mark Twain. These were perilous times, serious men undertaking serious enterprise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC) JimWae is going to kill me for being overwrought. Thank goodness for collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

re[edit]

I'm on vacation all this week, and online mostly through a phone. So while I've done some minor minor editing, I haven't checked in to the in-depth discussion that popped up about the map. That's why ice been quiet on any new talk :) I will be able to check by Sunday at the latest. Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pulaski[edit]

I noticed that you did a good job with this article. Do you think that this is ready for GA-class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.252.15.202 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. yes. I'm not sure of the process, and I know there is some sort of review process that will help strengthen stylistic and technical aspects.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The GA-nomination page is here; more info on the military history assessment is on this page. You can probably also find help at the Military history project. Hope this helps. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"The War Between The States"?[edit]

Really? Have you ever heard anybody but a Southron use it? Even in the South it's got that stale tone of secesh irredentism to it; and in 35 years in Wisconsin, including studies that led to a B.A. in History magna cum laude with a specialty in 19th- and 20th-century U.S. history, I've never heard anybody use it as anything but a joke. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

- Scholasticism does not impress. From the age of 12 I have been fencing with PhD-LLDs who were professors-emeritus (that's Latin to you), widely and repeatedly published and acknowledged intellectual leaders of scholarly schools such as the Lost Cause and 20th Century social movements, including Virginia's Massive Resistance. Fundamental misunderstanding and scholastic mis-orientation is not compensated nor assuaged by ivory-tower credentials.
- My branch of the family were Unionists in Norfolk, Virginia, so socially, our turn-of-the century unions with Navy and Marine officers turned to New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, the eligible men compatible with the young ladies of my family having died in the late unpleasantness, and the next crop suffering early and often in the War-to-win-all-wars. I fear my personal acquaintance with Nobel prize winners is only in history and chemistry and limited to the Harvard campus, but I've had passing introductions and an occasional lunch with men in other fields introduced by family members at the Cosmos Club in DC (that's the brains one, not the money (alas)). I cannot tell you how disappointing it is to discover that world-class genius and achievement is not necessarily passed on to all succeeding generations with the same certainty that wealth may be. True story.
- I am impressed that you were ever within actual walking distance of the magnificent collection of correspondence related to the Constitution's ratification. No, wait that is Minnesota, where is Garrison Keillor when we need him? Wisconsin was the home of Fighting Bob LaFollette, Progressive, one of my all time heroes, along with Humbert H. Humphrey, Democrat from way up around there, whom I met in a Senate elevator as an intern (not well connected enough to be a page). I did get to hear him making the graduation speech for his daughter's high school in DC. Did your studies take you into the lives of either men, or did your studies take you into the world of social history? Joseph (I never call him Joe) Ellis says the utility of social history to political history is akin to taking a lacrosse stick to Fenway Park. Is that true? My roommate in college played inter-collegiate lacrosse, but I really don't know anything about baseball.
- I guess that is all by way of introduction. To the question, What is your source for the assertion, " 'The War between the states' is only used in historical scholarship as a joke." Do Yankees really say, "put up or shut up" as anything but a joke any more? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Humphrey was a Minnesotan (a fine breed of folk, of course). It is impossible to study the history of Wisconsin without dealing with La Follette and his heirs and heritage. I do have the honor of having been a friend and comrade of Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee's most recent Socialist mayor, and I have an emeritus professor who remembers Harvard parties when that fellow Lehrer from Mathematics would sing his foolish little ditties. Alas, my own life is that of a humble civil servant.
As to the last query, of course they do. I was merely trying to inquire whether the term is in fact in use other than as a sort of family in-joke, akin to "the late unpleasantness" and all the Sir-Walter-Scott romanticized taradiddle of "Southron this" and "Southron that". I did not mean any discourtesy, nor to disrespect you or your own fields of study; but confess to being rather out of touch with current usages in the Land of Cotton, which I fled in 1977. (I'm literally one generation out of the cotton fields of West Tennessee, and can still hear my momma discoursing on how little fun it is to be dragging one of those bags along behind you as you pick.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. TWBS is meant mostly for the international reader which our data base says comes up with some frequency. It is not meant as a partisan statement in the same way WONA clearly is. With the last paragraph you have achieved scholastic stature in the anonymous internet, in my eyes at least. Anyone who has command of 19th Century Southron literature enough to reference Sir Walter Scott is worthy of serious consideration.
- Part of the national disfunction was that the two sections read disparate literatures, and so framed the world and its events differently. In the North the best seller was 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' (about the 1850s moral paragon who laid down his life for his friends NOT the shuffling self-denegrating toady of 1880s black-face minstrel shows - you don't think the name of the character was chosen to a purpose?) -- in the South, Scott's Ivanhoe was the best seller, which, although an improvement as literature to the Scottish pseudo-history that infamously preceded it, was still romanticizing a traditional feudal society which stifled individual potential, development and achievement outside favored lairds and most favored sons.
- This sort of sectional difference in reading is one of the reasons I favor national testing standards from a core of knowledge to be shared nationally in say, literature, making up 50% of the curriculum. I'd like to see a second bloc of state-requirement at 30%, and a third bloc of buffet-family-ethno-cultural requirement at 20%. Include the big minorities, English and English translations only, German, African-American, Irish, Scots, Latin-American, East Asian, South Asian, European, Islamic, Subsaharan ... Can you tell I taught U.S. History and U.S. Government classes in Fairfax, VA? The selection should reflect the cultural diversity of each state, with a % threshold for budget. [so we would see a Portuguese writers unit available in Hawaii and Rhode Island ... not feasible before online-CD resources]
- The problem I have with state-only curriculum, is that in the case of Virginia, to take but one example from one state, the U.S. history standards wer initially written without anyone in the field at any level. All were realtors. So, Bacon's Rebellion and the Populist Era were omitted. Need I go on? Over the last twenty years there have been two revisions, so we got Populists in, but not the Railroad Strike of 1877. I guess getting Debs mentioned in labor along with Gompers, Lewis and Chavez will suffice for now, but I want Philip Randolph added.
- Even as a high school boy thrilling at the romanticism found in required reading - wow, snippets from Shakespeare's Sonnets can work on a date - I was troubled by the illustrations of ivy-covered castle ruins. Ivy roots emit an acid which decomposes mortar. They are a sign of negligence or indolence about working masonry properties. The castles are in ruins because the failed society they symbolize was overrun by the English for good reasons, cultural, social, political. All this is not to misdirect you, I am a great fan of the Scottish Enlightenment, improvability of man as individual and society, though I do not quite imagine perfectibility as one of Eric Hoffer's 'true believers' might aspire to. I mean no discourtesy.
- While I was in graduate school for education-curriculum writing, I had a friend in the history department who had spent successive summers working in fields of tobacco (cigar wrap leaf in Maine!), picking cotton and planting indigo. He said tobacco is easiest except for the harvest hours, cotton is harder because of the never-ending finger cuts that never quite heal, and indigo was the worst because the wet gave his feet a fungus and the bottle? fly bites drew blood all day. I always thought no high school U.S. history course could be complete without a box of bottle flies for students to thrust a hand into for three minutes (extra quiz credit). But alas, I am retired, and there are all kinds of public school restrictions on extra-credit now ... it could be a cross-curriculum project with the biology teachers.
- To "War Between the States", since the phrase is mentioned in the scholarly citations with some frequency ... I will try to dig up that link for you, you can search on any term or phrase over three hundred years and name your year-span ... I thought it important for the international reader to be acquainted with the term since it appears in American scholarship. Otherwise, I'm not much of a 'Moonlight and Magnolias' kind of guy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 20[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John H. Morgan (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) 12:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourteenth Amendment (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) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Praise, praise, praise[edit]

You've made excellent upgrades to the USA page. ThievingBeagles (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


For you[edit]

Editor - bronze ribbon - 1 pip.jpg This editor is a Journeyman Editor and is entitled to display this
Service Badge.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll promote this to my user page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)




USA Talk[edit]

Hello TVH, There is a response to your inquiry on my talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


mail[edit]

You have mail again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Items requiring your attention[edit]

THV, you have more mail on my talk page. (I am not sure what you mean by 'ORA' and 'ORN'.) Also, there is more talk on the 'Blockade runners talk page regarding SS Fingal and citation usage. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I do not treat the article like my "personal sandbox." I am perfectly fine with valid edits there. When I see an edit that is not good, though, I will revert it and suggest it be brought up on the talk page. When you make an edit claiming "consensus" despite having nothing of the sort, that makes me question it even more. Who agreed to your edit? At all? I didn't. CMD didn't. We're the only ones in the thread at the moment. Please do not misrepresent your edits. If you want more eyes on the edit than just ours, please check with WP:RFC. But I am sure that we would be more amenable to your edits if they were presented to people first rather than put up at once and told to agree with it. For example, we would have been able to point out that "Alaska" and "Hawaii" are poorly introduced, or that too much is delinked, or what not. You aren't allowing that process to happen.

Secondly, I never claimed a "copyright issue" about that CSA map on your user page. I didn't even know it WAS on your user page. I deleted it from commons because it was an incomplete first draft, it had nothing to do with your legend, and I never said it had anything to do with your legend, so I don't know from where you got that notion. A bot then removed it from your page because it was no longer on commons.

I would love to work with you, and you have smarts and knowledge to bring to the project, but please do not accuse other editors of things they did not do, and please work within the consensus structure rather than making an edit and saying "it has consensus!" --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a short break. And thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. It really is a cool map. Please let me know when you want to have a go at the map again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bell (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) 10:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Territorial Crisis[edit]

Dear VA - I edited the section before I read or saw your format for collaboration, but I acknowledged your request.

My efforts to edit the side-by-side format did not work, not sure how to access it. Is it secure? Can only our usernames edit the material? 36hourblock (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

rats. If you say you want something in box 1.a I'll put it there if I can. I hope that when I copied the code I DID NOT add a comma somewhere that blocks us both. As I have said elsewhere, i tweek the code i hate the code i tweek the code i hate the code. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

New user might need some attention[edit]

Hi there! I'm glad to see you really digging in. I spotted a single contribution from a new editor (User:Beverly Wilson Palmer) today, and given the contribution, I thought I'd bring her username to an editor like yourself, just in case she needs newbie assistance. I've not been very active for the last few weeks, and want to make sure an expert on Thaddeus Stevens like Ms. Palmer is given every chance to get early success on the pedia. BusterD (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I would like to try to help. out. my condition makes reluctant to hold myself out to do much more than be a cheerleader, though, don't want to be on any open list or anything. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

re China/US area dispute[edit]

See footnote c in the infobox. Depending on how you calculate it, either the PRC or the USA is the 3rd largest country. --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

- Should the areal calculation for China area on the top of the world alter the geographical extent in the U.S. article first sentence? If so, why, and are there WP guides to help us determine that, or what scholarly sources exclude U.S. territory claimed by the USG due to China area calculations?
- And, I really do not want to be 'pissing in the pot' as the saying goes, I mean this as a sincere, direct question on WP policy to you -- Golbez -- you know geography better than I do, no matter how much I bicker -- here it is: to be even handed for international readers, and especially the mainland Chinese, should we not use the Kaplan source to note the Chinese Second Island Chain in the U.S. Infobox territory -- or will that simply anger so many English WP readers in Taiwan that it is 'not worth the candle' as they say. I'm not even going to write it again if you say no, I will not write it again if you make no reply to this second part. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the "second island chain", it should not be mentioned whatsoever. China does not control or claim anything out there, it is simply a military projection term. This has to do with your assertion that we didn't need to check all facts and figures because they would not alter the metrics of the country compared with other countries; I pointed out one metric, area, that COULD potentially be affected by including the territories. That is all. For approximately the eighth time, I am not using this as an excuse to not include the territories; I am saying, if you DO include the territories, then the facts and figures need to be checked to see whether or not they include the territories and, if not, either noted or replaced with ones that do. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "toning down" edit. I was just about to say, You must forgive me for thinking we are talking about area calculations for this, only the THIRD time. I thought we also talked about (a) judicial doctrines surrounding 'unincorporated' territory' and (b) population measures such as 'median income' before. That's why it is so intellectually rich arguing with you, we get to range everywhere over all kinds of things.
- The number -- EIGHT -- times you've said something before makes [made] me feel really small-minded. I don't think you realize, that because I respect you, the "I've-told-you-the-same-thing-eight-times-don't-you-get-it" line stings more than you probably intend. It feels [felt] like you are [were] talking down to me, not-good [better now].
- To the point, which I always feel is worth-while arguing with you. My main concern is political which wants to include the territories, and skim over geography with a general reference. Your main concern is geographic which wants to carefully calculate areal measures that will be incorporated in wikipedia's inter-country comparisons, and skim over legal definitions by place with a general reference.
- Both of us are bringing a fine sense of personal honor and scholarly integrity, those same values are then applied in different fields of government and geography, which now in a general interest country article brings about different editorial positions. I can't HELP but think there is a WP policy on country article introduction sections out there in big-hat wiki-land somewhere. WE -- you-and-I -- can-not-be the first two to wrestle with this in a WP country-article. I hate being new to this, but I am grateful for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Right now, the article intro states that the country consists of fifty states and a federal district. All of the numbers and facts in the article flow from that definition. If that definition were changed substantially (which it would be if you include the territories), then it stands to reason that at least some of the rest of the article would change. If they do not, we are basically saying "This is what the country is defined in the intro, but the rest of the article will ignore the territories completely," without even signalling that. That will mislead people and give them incorrect information; why would we want that, ever, even if it doesn't alter metrics? This isn't about being a wonk about facts and figures, this is the simple fact that, you are changing the definition of the country in the intro, yet appear to think the rest of the article can go without reflecting that new definition. I apologize for talking down to you, though this has been frustrating. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I did not see the two as prohibitively related, political place names and place areas calculated. I thought that editors for a country article would find reliable sources to describe it. The aspects might be historical, political, geographic, demographic or economic. There would not necessarily be internal consistency by a commonly used, consolidated database across all disciplines referenced throughout the article.
- Each editor need only ensure that HIS contribution was balanced and verifiable as it related to the topic addressed, reflecting the preponderance of scholarship in each field on the subject addressed.
- I also have a writer's block or something on this subject for now. I'm going to look for some WP intro guideline or something. -- Just because I don't make an immediate reply doesn't mean I have given up, I promise. -- Are the Requests for Comment coming to a close on Dec. 15 or after? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know when the RFC ends but it's been an abysmal failure as no one else has offered comment. We need to sell this better. --Golbez (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel I'm screaming in the coffee shop, I may not believe what he says, but I will defend -- to the death -- his RIGHT to say it. -- and no one looks up from their cell devices. I'm going to keep looking for a WP guideline somewhere. Well, happy holidays, until we are at it again. Looks like another round of activity over at CSA. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1860 election[edit]

Hey there. I've made a comment on the talk page of the article on the 1860 election concerning the changes you made there recently. Thought to leave you a note about it here considering the talk page is rather inactive. Thanks. Redverton (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

21st century territories history[edit]

Reference: Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v Johnny Rullan, Secretary of Health of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.66.236 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheVirginiaHistorian[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheVirginiaHistorian

TFD requested a bad faith Sockpuppet investigation on you just because we have a similar view related to one topic. --Buzity (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

re Palmyra[edit]

I read that exact PDF and saw that snippet. Heh. Incidentally, so far as I know, Honolulu is probably the longest city, since the consolidated city-county includes all of the northwestern Hawaiian islands. Tokyo is another contender, if it were an actual city, but the Tokyo-to prefecture includes the Ogasawara Islands which are also far out to sea. --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America".

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Definition of USA[edit]

TVH, I'm carrying the ball for you over at the notice board and have cited your assertions a couple of times. You might want to get in their soon and check on matters. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch drawing.svg Possible compromise resolution
The Dispute Resolution Noticboard volunteer, Noleander has offered a compromise solution here. Please take a minute to add your response as to whether you agree or disagree with this solution. There are no "ground rule" limitations but please consider using brevity if commenting . Amadscientist (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I see where the problem is ...[edit]

See Talk:Fascism where TFD shows pretty clearly an ability to see things being said which were not said and claims made which were not made at DR/N about "what is the US" <g> [4] which I think shows the problem faced at DRN quite nicely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It does help to see where TFD may be coming from. I will now launch on a lengthy sortie which the DRNs have cautioned me to learn how to avoid on public pages.
_ _ Much at 'Facscism' is crimped about by political science little informed intellectual history.* Not my bag. For instance, one editor struggling with marxist paraphrasing of a fascism "promoting the idea of a proletarian-based-state", would benefit in conciseness and relevance, were the writer to make the 1930s contemporary, self-described reference to the "volk". It would not only be better style, it would allow for the historical connections made into earlier intellectual developments of the concept of "nation" referenced in France, but dismissed by the narrowly academic field of the published political scientist - or wanna-be -- they ARE out there.
_ _ The connection between marxism and fascism is the idea of a uniformly virtuous body-politic led at the head by the true-believers (Hoffer). This idea is serious, powerful, important to be delt with by adherents of the federal republic. Madison wrestles with it in Federalist #10. It is nothing less than the English levelleer tradition made manifest in Cromwell's 1600s Commonwealth, not to be lightly dismissed in that 1700s time. At the end of Cromwell's experiment in corporate state virtue, transgressors were hung for dancing. Britain was saved in part because Cromwell's son inheriting power -- succession of power is ever a problem of governance -- the son was a gentle sort of courtier who did not inspire men to fight and die for the sake of a non-monarch king-in-all-but-name.
_ _ In a nutshell: Even if we were all to begin equal in wealth and opportunity, over time by circumstance, fortune and enterprise, we would find ourselves in society with unequal holdings of wealth. Whenever, whomever we would assign to re-adjust society's inequities would be by definition tyrants. These are the heads of the marxist and fascist regimes, tyrants. [Marxists and fascists are NOT democratic socialists of the modern European kind, another political beastiary classification entirely as they value individual rights apart from and above the "nation" as a body-politic.]
_ _ As Madison frames it in #10, the great issue in modern government is how to allocate and reallocate wealth and opportunity so that it benefits the entire community of residents, both in the near term and for the long run benefit of both individuals and society. That answer is a federal republic of large geographic, cultural and social diversity, where local majorities cannot oppress their minorities severely, for long, because the few can appeal to the larger sense of justice among the unbiased (disinterested, not indifferent) national majorities on the basis of individual fundamental rights and community democratic procedures.
  • I found my volume of Levinson and Sparrow. The anthology is exciting precisely because it has essays presented at a symposium, papers round-robin critiqued, polished, published and represent both political scientists stretching into history, and historians stretching into constitutional law. Great good stuff !.!.! TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Virginia History[edit]

Hi TVH, while doing reference and bibliography work I stumbled across some material I thought you might be interested in. They are available in their entirety as Ebooks in PDF and/or EPUB formats. Enjoy.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding! I can use all three. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


You have mail[edit]

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for your comment on my talk page[edit]

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I really appreciated your good advice. In fact I did edit the more specific articles first; about four of them which I tried to put in the economics and health sections in the United States article. You are right, and that is what the instructions say to do, but I think it would have been very unlikely that I would have known about it if it weren't for more experienced editors explaining it to me. EllenCT (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

United States[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -TFD (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I filed a 3rr report and you may reply here. -TFD (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hypocrite, how dare you[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring on United States. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  MastCell Talk 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TheVirginiaHistorian (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The rationale for blocking me is mistaken. “Territories” has been edited using the dispute resolution wording by Collect, Gwhillhickers, Amadscientist, Rightcowleftcoast, and TheVirginiaHistorian. The unsourced edit war removing it is by Golbez, TFD/TheFourDeuces and CMD/Chipmunkdavis. The DRN is, that the US territories shall be mentioned in the first sentence of the article United States, thus, “The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, […as well as several territories.], or [… with territories of varying levels of autonomy.], or [...and several territories.] Ten times DRN-like language has been placed with consensus and sources to “include territories” in the first sentence, then removed. *1a* 19 March, Collect placed “territories”. Older≠wiser/Bkonrad reverted “territories”. *1b* Gwhillhickers restored “territories”. *1c* 18:26, 19 March 2013‎ Golbez . tweeked away from the consensus, then proclaimed, (this is how its done. if you have a problem with this then you admit the "D"RN cares only about wording and not actually resolving the dispute, and fucking take me to arbcom, no one rational can possibly dispute this.) “The United States of America is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories.” *2* Preserve “territories#. 21:51, 19 March 2013‎ Amadscientist ‬‎ . . (I don't object to the wording just the removal of reliable sources) #Remove “territories”. --- two steps: (1) 02:09, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez. . (i made this, i can unmake this. i do not recognize the authority or veracity of that edit and should not have implemented it.) (2) 14:02, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (silly me, i reverted to the wrong, incorrect, poorly discussed, no-consensus version, when i meant to return to the status quo. thanks for pointing out my error, collect) *3* Restore “territories”. 14:13, 3 April 2013‎ Collect. . (talk pages shows this as having the most support overall - the status quo had much less support) #Remove “territories”. 14:30, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez ‬‎ . . (then pray tell why did my attempt at a consensus implementation live far longer than this horrible little tripe? choose one of my versions, this one is apparently not an option. as you made your choice that this one was bad through laziness.) *4* Restore “territories”. 00:45, 4 April 2013‎ RightCowLeftCoast ‬‎ . . (reverted change to lead per WP:BRD, no consensus was formed to revert the lead to its former worded; modified lead to closely resemble consensus wording achieved at DRN)#Remove “territories”. By TFD/The Four Deuces, 03:59, 4 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces *5* Restore “territories”. 11:59, 4 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian. #Remove “territories”. 17:38, 20 April 2013‎ Golbez .. (correcting per my revelation on the talk page) *6* Restore “territories”. 06:39, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian ‬‎ . . (no consensus to remove territories. see Talk) #Remove “territories”. 12:15, 29 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces *7* Restore “territories”. 12:52, 29 April 2013‎ Collect #Removed “territories”. 14:44, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *8* Restored “territories”. 15:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian‎ . . #Removed “territories".16:16, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *9* Restored “territorities”. 17:09, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian… #Removed “territories”18:02, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez *10* Restored “territories” 21:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian. . #Removed “territories” by CMD/Chipmunkdavis 13:59, 1 May 2013‎ Chipmunkdavis Here are two sources supporting “including territories”. AT UNITED STATES TALK: ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." Executive Order 13423 This is a straightforward affirmative statement that the inhabited territories are a part of the country, without legalese.… Populations which were acquired under US jurisdiction as "aliens" are now incorporated in the nation; the Census Department defines "native-born American" to include those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian 2:58 am, 29 April 2013. Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block, i.e., edit-warring.  Sandstein  17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Territory Issue[edit]

I think that you misunderstood Sandstein's response. You were not topic-banned from editing the article, and an administrator has no authority to topic-ban a user without consensus. You were blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. The block has expired. You may edit the article as long as you don't edit-war. What article is it? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States. The sourced language opposed is, "The US is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories." WP editor IgnorantArmies suggested "... district as well as five territories", I agreed, and the administrator axed it without prior discussion, bowed out after our dialogue, and the three confederates appeared. When the 1-3 became 2-3, my contributions were unsuccessfully challenged as sock-puppetry, the confederates persisted throughout the resolution stages and returned in concert with the administrator to disrupt then revert the implementation of the DR. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

rationale and sources, opposition[edit]

Sought language in the US article is, “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five organized territories.” In this case we look at the US as an internationally recognized nation-state, which is disputed. By the 1933 Montvideo Convention, Art.1. The state as a person of international law should possess: (a) population; (b) territory; (c) government; and (d) relations with the other states. Art.2, “The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.” States in free association become independent in 20 years if treaty is not renewed for Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and Micronesia. But that the federal state of the US is a "sole person" in its 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories of citizens represented in Congress, is disputed.

Legal scholars (Lawson and Sloane 2009) show Puerto Rico enjoys UN criteria for democratic process, fundamental rights, self-governance and participation in national councils to comply with 1960 UN resolution 1541, allowing for “integration with an independent state” [p.1134], disputed by reference to pre-1960 primary documents without scholarly interpretation, -- though, once again -- only 3% Puerto Ricans voted ‘independence’ in the Nov 2012 referendum with 80% turnout. US citizens in the US territories are represented in the US House, --- by US constitutional practice for 220 years, once there is a path to citizenship and 100,000 Americans --- DC (elected mayor) and territories (elected governors) are listed in the Representatives directory by US place represented, equally with the states.

The opposition hinges on a) the CIA Factbook, US has a section, US government, with subdivisions, President, Congress, States, Territories. Editors synthesize from a tertiary source to suppose Congress and states are included in the US government, only Territories are not. b) It is said territories are not states so they cannot be in the US, comparing the US to the British Commonwealth or UK in non-sequiturs. c) the Insular Cases 100 years ago allowed Congress to annex territory of aliens, who would be made citizens by Congress, just as "at the ratification of the Constitution" (Northwest Territories), --- the test set forth in the Downes case for political incorporation into the US --- by Congress. But editors insist the US congress is incompetent, the Supreme Court must overturn the Supreme Court. The Court ruled good law, Territories were not to have the Uniformity Clause applied for revenue purpose as they were not states. But Editors synthesize from a legal digest, that revenue provisions bar inhabitants from the US federal republic in the matter of citizenship, --- whom Congress has made citizens with self-government and Members of Congress in the federal republic.

In brief, the discussion, mostly daily October 2012 - May 2013 revolves around the following points.

  • Primary sources. [8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality GENERAL PROVISIONS § 1101. “Definitions. (29) The term ‘’outlying possessions of the United States’ means American Samoa and Swains Island. [p.22]. (36) The term ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [p.23]. There is no US statute declaring “US territories are not a part of the US for US law”. Also provided when contested, each statute making US citizens in 5 territories, and the .gov sites for territory Members of Congress.
  • Secondary USG - foreign. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Sec.104 [8 u.s.c. 1104] The Secretary of State will administer and enforce the provisions of this Act and all other immigration and nationality laws. Chap. 7 Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), INA provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the US… [from Nov. 3, 1986], the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States”. As defined in INA, the term "outlying possession" is only American Samoa and Swains Island [p.18]. There is no State Department view of law in force declaring “US territories are not a part of the US for international purposes.” an unsourced opposition assertion.
  • Secondary USG - domestic. When implementing Congressional statutes, the executive interprets ‘‘'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District… and five organized US territories. There is no Executive Order found stating, “US territories are not a part of the US in executing US law”. "Native-born American" include those born in the five organized US territories. Welcome, a guide for immigrants by Homeland Security’s US citizenship and immigration services, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." There is no source disputing US nationality in the five organized US territories, an unsourced opposition assertion.
  • Scholarly sources. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” Summarized by the political science scholar Bartholomew Sparrow, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). There is no scholar who says, “modern US territories are not a part of the US”, an unsourced opposition assertion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

United States talk page[edit]

Thanks TVH, for your support concerning Golbez hostile commentary. I am not sure that I can edit on the Wikipedia article United States due to Golbez continued hostile remarks. Some of Golbez hostile commentary may have been removed from the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unincorporated territories of the United States 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:
  • schools/law/bclawreview/pdf/50_4/05_lawson-sloane.pdf …Puerto Rico’s legal status reconsidered], p. 1176. Viewed June 14, 2013.</ref> In November 2008 a district court judge ruled that a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Service award[edit]

Aye there TVH, just passin' through and noticed your service award needs upgrading.

Editor - silver ribbon - 2 pips.jpg This editor is a Yeoman Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Not all as pleasant or instructive as the Jefferson page, I fear. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil War Montage[edit]

Thank you sir for your thoughts on the civil war montage. However I must admit, the montage is not my own work. I found it in the Wikimedia Commons. I think we could even improve upon this one, perhaps adding more scenes of war to the 3 we have.

Sincerely, Themane2 (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got my support. Check other long historical/war articles to see how many are usual on the "Montage Scale" for size/crowded meter.... :)
Perhaps: Massed infantry (artillery is already featured), Union gunline on blockade (riverine already featured), wagons in train along a road, or in a park--rows to the horizon! (Library of Congress photo), Grant at headquarters with telegraph wires strung to every division commander (enlisted already featured), temporary railroad bridge with locomotive pictured--engineered of cornstalks (LoC) ...
The caption could then instructively note some of the technological innovations pictured: since Napoleonic era and Crimean War, army artillery has rifled bores, infantry replaced smooth bore muskets with rifled arms on both sides, ironclads ruled the inland waterways... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Confederate States Army - Strengths and Weaknesses[edit]

Hello, Virg. Hist.

Thanks for your support over the short section I added to the page on 'Confederate States Army'. No, I don't have specific references to hand. It seemed to me that the points were so well known that we wouldn't need them. (By the way, the word you thought possibly superfluous was not 'interestingly' but 'increasingly'.) Really can't see a good reason for the deletion, anyway. Valetude (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

re[edit]

"You then summarized my position, DC was not in US possession until 1972" I'm going to need a citation on that, since I do not recall making such a statement. I recall (and of course I could be wrong, hence the request for a link) saying that you said that DC was not part of the US until 1972, which as we all know is different from being a possession. Which is kind of the crux of the whole argument. --Golbez (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

thanks. you remember correctly, I said, 'DC not a part of the federal republic until people represented in 1972', you restated 'DC not a part of the United States until 1972'. The differences among interpretations of "a part of the US" is indeed the crux of the argument. If I may restate three positions summarily, we have:
a) "a part of the US" is possessions, territories, federal district and states, all admitting occupation alone does not make a place "a part".
b) "a part of the US" is admittance to the federal republic constitutionally by citizenship and representation in Congress by national practice, modern US territories, DC and states.
c) " a part of the US" are places which are or have ever been, states.
To save $3, I bought through Amazon a volume recommended by Newyorkbrad, but is taking over a week to get here versus purchase directly at Amazon. The online view of the anthology shows both b) and c) views are inconclusive in the scholarly community. Newyorkbrad observed the wikifencing between myself and Bkonrad-0uw reflected the real-world diversion of interpretations of the Insular Cases at 'unincorporated territories of the united states'. More to learn, better done in the subsidiary articles, just as you suggested. I will return to 'Unincorporated' page after reading 'Domestic in a foreign sense' entirely through, as I have my own copy of 'Louisiana Purchase and American expansion'. For the benefit of the 'United States' page, I am TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC).
The main issue here seems to be, you (and apparently a few others) see the "federal republic" as being a distinct entity from the "United States". I don't. To be part of one is to be part of the other. And, as I did before, to use modern terminology and law, the district was incorporated the moment Maryland was, and that cannot be undone. --Golbez (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean the moment Virginia and Maryland was. It seems so as to places for summary c) in the case of DC, as you say.
But that means rights of citizenship were reversed for residents in DC following its establishment as the federal district by state consent as provided in the constitution -- which cannot be done today in modern US territories, according to Supreme Court holdings as we discussed earlier. When I was growing up, I had a neighbor in northern Virginia who, were he about to be embroiled in a controversy over candidates at election time, he would say, "I'm not a Virginian, I'm a citizen of DC -- I don't vote, so I don't have a say in it".
Because I focus on populations in places, I would be happy to allow for defining "a part of the US" as places with organic acts of US citizenship mutually agreed to such as DC before 1972 by Virginia and Maryland legislatures, but not Puerto Rico before 1952 as its earlier citizenship was conferred without Puerto Rican consent. Nevertheless, today that would include modern territories by extension as 'a part of the US', as they all have organic acts of citizenship with more privileges than DC had, mutually agreed to by congress and local legislatures or plebiscite or both. Aside: Since 1972 DC has no more than modern US territories in the US federal republic -- except presidential electors without state-like population proportion -- it is forever three until statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I was speaking to the present District, so just Maryland. The Virginia portion was returned long before 1972. And, not exactly forever three, as it's simply "the same as the smallest state"; were demographics to become really, really wonky, that number could increase from 3. As for the rest, I have no interest in pursuing an argument on such a minority position as "DC was not part of the federal republic". You may be able to find traction with that elsewhere but I see no further benefit to discussing it. Sorry to be so blunt but I just see nothing good that can come out of it. Nothing on Wikipedia will be impacted by it. --Golbez (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is what I mean, I have a lot to learn. I have unintentionally misled you. DC is a part of the US in my view, since 1791, and its population is a part of the federal republic since 1972. If as you say there is no distinction between 'a part of the US' and 'federal republic' using Native-American reservations as your guide because they are 'a part of the US', then just as Native American reservation places are 'a part of the US' without citizens until mid 1900s or direct congressional representation as polities, so too are modern US territories with US citizens and their own Members of Congress. They too were directly administered by the Army then the Interior Department before self-government, Puerto Rico electing its first governor in 1948.
a) The only item you address is the last because it seems here online, only the last item is responded to--not just you-- and that aside was evidently not clearly stated on my part. The amendment said, "but in no event more than the least populous State", that is, in no event more than three, unlike a state. -- the point is that DC is not taken to be a state, just as modern US territories are not to be taken to be states with presidential electors based on population or Puerto Rico would have more electors than 20 states.
b) My point is not to exclude DC, It must be included either on the grounds of places once states -- which we agree, or on the grounds of inclusion in federal republic by representation in congress, -- a point on which we part. I observe that on the basis of US constitutional practice of "incorporating" territories for 200 years, DC is on that grounds a part of the federal republic since 1972, the modern US territories are also. DC is 'a part of the US' since 1791.
On the grounds that Native American reservations have always been 'a part of the US' but have at times a) never been states, b) directly administered by the Army or the Interior Department, c) without citizens nor represented in Congress, THEN modern US territories meet the same criteria to be included as 'a part of the US', each with an organic act and citizens, self-government and Member of Congress. My copy of 'Foreign in a domestic sense' came in. Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Just because X had certain aspects and is a part of the country, doesn't mean Y with those same aspects is part of the country. That's the complaint all of us have had with your logic: You look at one entity, which is part, and say this other entity has characteristics of it, and conclude that of course the other entity is part of the country. This is synthesis and original research. You cannot annex an island to the country, only the country can do that. So instead of trying to find logical solutions to this, all that matters is finding adequate sourcing of annexation. Any further argument on the logic of incorporation of being part of the country or republic should be discarded immediately, as it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
(And yes, I know I have brought up logical arguments in the past, like "they can leave, so they aren't incorporated" or what not. But those took a backseat to the sourcing, which I've clearly made it a point to ask for lately, sourcing which has not been supplied.) --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. well argued. Burnett in 'Foreign in a domestic sense' points out among scholars there are two inconclusive views, --the point of her balanced anthology representing both schools of thought. The view I favor takes the explicit language in organic acts, political union as a compact, to mean political incorporation. -- key word "compact" (Burnett takes the other view, but she still includes scholars explicating my preferred take).
I did not know enough to use the term of art in a pointed way until last week reading the online view of the book from her introduction. I had quoted 'compact' in passages pertaining to Northern Marianas, but without understanding how it cemented the union -- in one view. So the answer for me will not be an either-or outcome, but scholars 'on-the-one-hand; on-the-other'. Thanks again for your patience. Gotta hit the books before further reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Bombardment of Cherbourg 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 GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Prabash.A's talk page.
Message added 13:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Prabash.Akmeemana  13:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

The article Bombardment of Cherbourg you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Bombardment of Cherbourg for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Coverage of Architect on Jefferson page[edit]

Hi TVH, we are still discussing whether or not to include 'Architect' in the infobox and moreover, whether we should cover this better in the article itself with a subsection, so we need more informed opinions from people who have been involved with the page. -- Gwillhickers 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ebooks[edit]

I was going over sources for Jefferson and architecture and came across a couple of more E'books in my travels I'd thought you'd might find interesting.

When you get to the GoogleBook page 'hover' (don't click) on the red box that says, 'EBOOK FREE', then select and click on Download PDF and/or Epub. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers 11:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

sorry I don't know what you mean[edit]

"thanks for the animated map at ACW" What's ACW? --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

American Civil War. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I meant CSA, Confederate States of America. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't received this before...[edit]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

E'books[edit]

Came across these E'books in my travels. Thought you might want to add them to your E'library, but not before checking with your wife. smile -- Gwillhickers 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The Coles volume you sent me is the citation for the latest at Thomas Jefferson-Louisiana Purchase. ... Its in the computer files somewhere. not the same as scanning a bookshelf. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Here's a primary source you might find useful:
The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson. Compiled from Family letters and reminiscences by his great granddaughter Sarah N. Randolph
-- Gwillhickers 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the acclaimed three volume biography, written by Henry Stephens Randall in 1858, considered the most authoritative biography written about Jefferson since he was the only biographer permitted to interview Jefferson’s immediate family.
Enjoy, -- Gwillhickers 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

More oldie-goldies[edit]

E'books:

USA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent USA 1863
CSA Andrew Jackson stamp
2-cent CSA 1862
Union celebrated Andrew Jackson the anti-nullifier; Confederacy celebrated the hero repulsing invasion at New Orleans

-- Gwillhickers 06:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

thanks. it's like an early christmas. I have a volume of famous American speeches that includes one of Webster's, Reply to Haynes. wow, what a different world of ideas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. At Talk:Confederate States of America#Deleting Andrew Jackson celebration on both sides BusterD suggested we team up to create a Stamps of the American Civil War article. Nearby is the image that failed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is already Postage stamps and postal history of the Confederate States which I rewrote almost entirely some time ago where Confederate stamps and postal history are well covered and displayed. As 'Union' stamps go, many that were printed before the Civil War broke out were used through the civil War itself, while the few that were printed during the Civil War were used for some time after the war, so referring to these as Stamps of the American Civil War is perhaps not the best description. In any case, there is no reason why the Civil War page shouldn't have an example of a couple of stamps issued during that time. -- Gwillhickers 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I also think a compilation as a gallery with text of U.S. commemoratives would be interesting, which is probably what BusterD intended. But here, there is manifest confusion over stamps as commemoratives versus stamps as artifacts of documentary history. Even Rjensen thought there was nothing to the warring governments picturing of the same man because --non-sequitur-- the USPS ran commemoratives of all its presidents in the 1920-30s. I registered no point with him observing Andrew Jackson was not a Confederate president, and that was not the point of the stamps at the time in the time.
I think I still need a source on the divergent significance of Jackson on both sides before the stamps can be accepted. One editor suggested there were other illustrations of Jackson for use without cancellation marks, so stamps as artifacts is clearly not understood by editors on the page. But in addition, I thought the stamps were a two-fer, showing divergent use of the same icon, AND the disparity of technological capacities available on each side. I'm still have half-an eye out for the description I read concerning Andrew Jackson and G. Washington on both sides' stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Confederate army[edit]

Thank you for your kind comments about my proposed, but deleted section headed 'Strengths and weaknesses'. Is there such a thing as an executive editor, who makes a final judgment on these issues? Valetude (talk) 13:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes administrators are listed in the Talk page heading. There is an automatic interest group in the listed Wikiprojects or in this case "Task Force" at the for a third party take on the issue ... toggle [show] on the Additional Information line. They should be listed in a Request for Comment (RFC).
When I recently went to the WP:Teahouse for a strategy to avoid controversy, the advice was first use a Request for Comment on the Talk page, see the WP:RfC page.
That is assuming good faith, first try to talk it out by calling attention to the issue, --- way before anybody gets called/blocked for edit warring (three reversions without discussion on the Talk page) or the back-and-forth becomes eligible for the later 'dispute resolution'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

E'books 2[edit]

-- Gwillhickers 20:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

thanks. I dream of writing a compilation biography of longest serving Virginia U.S. Representatives/Senators, and William Branch Giles is on my list. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to add a (hopefully) small paragraph in the First Barbary War section about Jefferson and his gunboats which later on proved to be a not so great idea. While hunting and searching through sources I found these -- I'm sure they're good for other topics also.
  • Sullivan, William (1834). FAMILIAR LETTERS ON PUBLIC CHARATERS, AND PUBLIC EVENTS FROM THE PEACE OF 1783, TO THE PEACE OF 1815, Russell, Odiorne and Metcalf, Boston, 345 pages; E'book
  • Jefferson, Thomas; Washington, H.A. (Ed.); (1854). The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Inaugural addresses and messages. Replies to public addresses. Indian addresses. Miscellaneous: 1. Notes on Virginia; 2. Biographical sketches of distinguished men; 3. The batture at New Orleans, Ricker, Thorne & Co., New York, 607 pages, E'book
  • Jefferson, Thomas ; Dwight; Theodore Dwight (1839). The character of Thomas Jefferson: as exhibited in his own writings, Weeks, Jordan & Company, 371 pages E'book
-- Gwillhickers 01:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. rich rich rich. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wednesday : Here's a page that's chuck full of primary sources : Online Books by Thomas Jefferson -- Gwillhickers 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Where do you find these, how do you mine the internet for these resources? For Jefferson, for Daniel Webster? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Further tightening of History section[edit]

Hello, I see you are back from your brief hiatus.

I'm thinking we should reign in the rest of the History section further (esp. Independence and expansion, minus Contemporary era) and have it show the "big picture" while leaving out historical details that did not have as big and direct of an impact on how the US is today, and I'm sure you will agree. While you were gone I tried going over some of them, though I still think you have a better eye than I do in terms of removing the right details to leave a concise but informative coverage. Your further proposals at Talk:United States would be welcome. Cadiomals (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a try. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamestown (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) 09:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

E'book and a most interesting author[edit]

See any similarity to Jefferson in Watson? -- Gwillhickers 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Scots-Irish roots I presume. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh, heh, Actually I was referring to Watson's political and ideological aspirations. Both Jefferson and he disliked bloated government, despised big banks, championed the poor farmer and embraced an agrarian political ideology. His was the 'People's' Party' whereas Jefferson was referred to as the 'People's President'. Given Watson's two biographies on TJ also there seems to be more than an incidental affinity between the two. i.e.Cut from the same bolt of cloth. Anyway, I've been busy hunting and gathering for sources on Jefferson and have been adding them to the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson page. Unfortunately many such sources don't come up in general google searches, so I have to go to other lengths to find them. What fun! -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


Your civil war stamps draft[edit]

Is there a link to this draft on your user page? Can't seem to find one there or on my talk page where I 'thought' it was. Will have to back track my browser history to find it otherwise. Re:Image format. Use whatever works. I've always used the table format for horizontal display of several images -- easier to edit in terms of singling out which caption belongs to a given image. Again, I would recommend that you be very choosey about including stamps that are peripherally related to Civil War themes -- esp if the page isn't going to take on narrative dimensions. -- Gwillhickers 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox which may translate to User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I did find a use for just about every stamp in the new category on wikimedia commons. Thanks. A couple I've found using names from the Scott's Specialty Catalogue (now in color) -- German immigration at Wikicommons, but others are not found like Irish immigration or Antietam. But I know to snag from Smithsonian when I learn how on the Mac. In the sandbox, I've made note of (placeholder) for stamps or for issues. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Puerto Rico".The discussion is about the topic Puerto Rico. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Rico[edit]

Hello my friend,

Thank you for your message. It seems as if we have a lot in common. We are about the same age, served in the military (by the way thank you for service), we love history and writing about military related subjects. I had checked out your user boxes before, very nice.

We may differ in regard to what the political status of Puerto Rico should rightly be, Independent or state as in statehood, however the bottom line is that Puerto Rico's political structure and future all depends on what the United States wants. Nobody tells the boss what to do. It is what the boss wants and is best for him. We are not kids anymore who could be fooled by what we are told or by what we are lead to believe, If our country, the United States, has influenced the politics of foreign nations thru agencies such as the CIA, then what is to keep the US from dealing with the politics of Puerto Rico and it's future?

In regard to the "incorporated" or "unincorporated" issue, I agree that more research into the subject is needed. The problem is that a discussion of this subject may turn political. When a subject becomes "political" or is of a political nature, then it is tough to decide who is right and who is wrong. When it comes to politics and/or religion, everybody is right and everybody is wrong, depending on individual believes. When we cite the so-called reliable sites by scholars and so on, we must be careful as to how reliable they are. Scholars, historians and authors are often biased and influenced by their own personal believes and the times in which they lived. What we need to conclude the issue involved is a copy of an official legal document in which the Government of the United States has made it clear if the island is "incorporated" or "unincorporated".

Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. They will make it easier to "let it go" when the time comes. My guess is that you were an outstanding MP. It seems as though participants in the discussion fear the loss of any reference to "unincorporated", -- when of course Puerto Rico must be "unincorporated" as long as the discriminatory tax regime is enforced on PR where it would be unconstitutional for a state. My guess is stockholders of Puerto Rican sugar interests are not interested in bringing legal suit to change it. politics, as you say.
Regardless, my point seems to be entirely lost, I wish only to present a) there is a controversy as sourced at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and b) one side says "incorporated" as sourced at Boston College Law Review, p.1175.
Because the discussion was begun by an unreasonable IP who wanted to replace "unincorporated" with "incorporated" everywhere, and because the discussion was pushed to DRN before working out the reasonable language I was looking for in consensus, it looks as though my interest in presenting the controversy will fail to be included in the article. And I just can't see bringing it up again for a year without seeming disruptive. Mercy11 already thinks I was the wild-eyed IP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • To tell you the truth, I told myself "I like this guy, this is someone you can talk to". You see my friend, in this project there are too many people who are uncivil and with whom you cannot have an intellectual discussion or conversation. It is always nice to find someone with whom you can converse. Take care and Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

DRN case closed[edit]

Wikipedia-Medcab.svg Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Puerto Rico". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because no volunteer accepted to mediate the case. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! ----Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC) This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.

Puerto Rico Project Talk Page[edit]

I have reinstated your removal of the DRN section at the Puerto Rico project Talk Page since the DRN in question (HERE) was closed just yesterday, making the information too recent to be removed. This is particularly so given that there is now a consequential follow-up RfC on the same issue HERE. I think it is useful information for a newcomer to have the background information accessible to him, and removal would prevent them from just that. I think you will agree that there is a wealth of information and opinions that were presented at the DRN, but which someone new to the discussion may find necessary to access. Yet removal of the link would make that difficult or impossible depending on the user. Most importnatly, the page in question is archived by a bot. I appreciate your understanding. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You duplicated the information for the DRN in your own post, moved the RfC notice out of chronological order, and demoted the RfC which incorporated comments from all sides in the discussion section and at the DRN. I simply removed my own post now duplicating yours. Please read the RfC carefully before you object to it, it incorporates your viewpoint also. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing stamps[edit]

Abraham Lincoln
Issue of 1866

Aye TVH, I see your Civil War stamps page is shaping up. I added a stamp for Andrew Johnson, which was missing. Also, I noticed you have added a section for Abraham Lincoln stamps, but it (and the entire article/draft) is missing the first Lincoln stamp, issued in 1866, one year exactly, after death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The whole discussion from BHG's talk page, upon her request, has been copied to my talk page as linked above. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment on Talk:Puerto Rico[edit]

Apologies if my comment was misunderstood. I did state, "Thank you all..." - although I can understand that it may have appeared to be directed specifically at you per the threading. You're certainly not the only one guilty of protracting the discussion. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

re: Virginia in the American Civil War[edit]

Hello, VH, thank you for noting the previous editing I had done on that page. Unfortunately my edit was undone arbitrarily in a retardataire manner. Compare my edit with what is currently on that page as well as History of Virginia. This is the old version of my original edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Virginia&oldid=316388037#West_Virginia_split

I have the 1861 list of Virginia voting districts by counties if you are still interested in having it. If so I will add it to this post. Sincerely, Dubyavee (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, please. thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Here are the voting districts, I scanned it rather than type it all out. If you need the citation it is "Ordinances Adopted by the Convention of Virginia at the Adjournd Session, in June and July, 1861", Wyatt M. Elliott, Printers, Richmond, 1861, page 44.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3810/12597476383_f47609d587_b.jpg

I will probably change the WV material on the Virginia pages at some point, but it has been very difficult. There have been a lot of changes in scholarship over the last "75 years", and we need to bring the material up to date. One doesn't use "reliable sources" if the reliable sources are provably wrong, no matter how revered the historian is. Dubyavee (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. it goes into my "Virginia History" notebook.
Not sure how to persuade Rjensen. His objection seems to be one of academic turf wars. Virginia historians do not do West Virginia, so WP 'Virginia ---' should not do West Virginia so much. But if the people in the time called themselves "Virginians", then it seems to me they should be in the Virginia history article to some degree, regardless of how modern academia choses to divide themselves so as to make scholarly disjunctions for their professional purposes. Those are not the purposes of the general reader, nor the history of the people of that time.
On the other hand, I am not proposing that 'West Virginia in the ACW' and 'Virginia in the ACW' be merged, however logical that might be, so I do see something in Rjensen's point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Page launch[edit]

Hi TVH, I noticed you havn't created the American Civil War history on stamps page yet. Was just wondering why. Seems you have more than enough sourced content to make the plunge. Are there any issues? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My notifications box says DragonflySixtyseven reviewed the 'ACW on stamps' candidate 9 days ago with a green box checked.
The same editor reviewed the 'History of Virginia on stamps' with a green box checked 14 hours ago.
How do I know if the article is in mainspace? Is that mine to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you don't need the permission of anyone to launch a page in the first place. If any new page has issues they can be fixed. If the page has so many issues where it's nominated for deletion that's another matter, but again, you need no one's permission. Your article is good to go. The above link is red because the page doesn't exist. Click on it, and simply copy and paste your draft into the edit window and hit 'save'. Then add categories, links, etc as needed. After you save, the link will then become blue, just in case you didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The article is created as a B class, Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, with the war misspelled. It seems debilitatingly long. Main article: American Civil War is deleted, categories are deleted. The title does not come up on any subject searches, it is so convoluted that the bot cannot suggest any subject links -- not even American Civil War.
I would prefer the title ‘American Civil War on postage stamps’ or 'American Civil War history on stamps' since the stamps used in the war and the stamps commemorating famous Americans and presidents are not explicitly commemorating the Civil War, the article provides the value added recounting the civil war careers of participants pictured on stamps, the stamps give the wp:significance of the biographies to be included in the article.
The story is the American Civil War, including the explicit commemorations of soldiers, sailors and events, -- but that is conceptually only one-third the article subject matter, omitting the stamps of the war and the famous Americans on stamps with Civil War biographies. Do I now just start a new article title with the same text, make the article links, and let a bot delete the orphan? Is there a reason for deleting the tag, main article: American Civil War? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For you[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your great effort of creating and building the Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps article.
Gwillhickers (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Amalie (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Perforation and Gumming[edit]

Dear Virginia Historian, Please do not take it amiss that I’d like to suggest that you make a correction in your article on Civil War-related stamps. You say that the first US stamps were produced with perforation and gumming machines. This is not accurate. All US stamps issued between 1847 and 1856 were imperforate, requiring manual cutting; and sheets were likewise gummed by hand. In 1856 or ’57, perforation apparatus (acquired from England) went into use in the US; stamps continued to be gummed by hand until 1880 (see the Wikipedia article on Postage Stamp Gum).

I’m not quite sure how to rewrite the section to ensure accuracy while preserving your point about rapid technological innovation (which the prompt introduction of mechanized perforation within a decade surely exemplifies), and I’m hoping you’ll find the best way. All best, BFolkman — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFolkman (talkcontribs) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm afraid I'm new to the field in a scholarly way, though a collector or enthusiast for over fifty years. Retirement and Wikipedia have given me a new outlet for the hobby interest, most recently a section at U.S. territories on 'Territories on stamps'. I should be able to qualify the statement to align with other sources. Thanks for your contributions, I am happy to be a part of something bigger by collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheVirginiaHistorian. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Dear Virginia Historian, I'm afraid I can't help you--I'm not a Mac user, and I've never tried to upload fair use images. Someone who might be of help, and who has done some editing on your Commemoration piece, is GWillhickers. Hope you're ultimately successful. All best, BFolkman (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I kept hammering at it, found on the mac you can reformat the .tiff file into .jpeg, which is rendered .jpg on the upload wizard. the same image on .jpeg is 20% of the size of the same image with .tiff. That brings them all under 100KB, which I believe is some sort of default limit for the upload wizard. I uploaded 'New Orleans capture', as a fair use for the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thirteenth Amendment (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) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some mo'[edit]

Washington Territory

Minnesota Territory

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been adding new ones to my sandbox before reorganizing... could you help out with Antietam and Vicksburg? I've uploaded two fair use stamps at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps for battles, but I repeatedly fail at Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I've been spending a lot of my editing time on the Thomas Jefferson page, removing unused sources, adding content, citations, clean up, etc. To break the monotony I've been uploading various stamp images and then upgrading the respective stamp images. Anytime you want to see my latest stamp image uploads go to my user page and click on Gallery of uploads in the caption under the stamp image. Will be uploading the Washington Territory and Minnesota Territory images some time today, after I capture, enlarge and tweak the tone and clarity with my trusty ole photo editor, Btw, did you see my message left on the Territories of the United States talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks. Yes, but the territories article may not be analogous to the United States, since about a third of the U.S. territories page is charts..., I thought I'd wait to see what the crew there had to say first. I'd still like to launch the U.S. territories on stamps after a little more work.
I've now collected over sixty stamps for the U.S. territories and settlement sandbox, but some resorting is in order, and some narrative needs to be completed. Is there something I can do in my initial uploads to improve quality? I'm going from .tiff to .jpeg to make the files smaller...
At the USPS website, Uses not requiring permission, it advises, fair usage includes, "Noncommercial, educational uses limited to teaching, scholarship, and research. " , -- doesn't Wikipedia qualify? --that the only qualification is that "users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, and include language such as: "© United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.""
I did not know to include the two caveats in my previous upload tries. But I noticed the Luis Marin stamp at Wikimedia Commons was uploaded by someone using the cyrillic alphabet, claiming USPD origin, even though it was issued under the USPS. I did not use that image in my "Puerto Rico on Stamps" new section at "Puerto Rico".
My Togo stamp is being challenged at Wikimedia Commons for deletion [5] -- the Emancipation Proclamation I uploaded for Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps from the National Postal Museum is only 51 years old... I don't think it can stay up, since the French have a limit of 70 years, and I haven't found Togo postal regulations in English. In the old days, I'd just call someone at the Togo Embassy, or email them from work, whether in DC or NYC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've made reference to the USPS site in the attempt to justify 'fair usage', but unfortunately it fell on ultra opinionated ears whose approach to fair use policy was almost robotic. Anyways, I've been going through my stamp collections again, which, aside from stamp albums, consists of cigar boxes and boxes of stamps. Lot's of mixtures I've yet to fully inspect. Here's another territory stamp you might want to use. Indiana Territory. I've been busy today and haven't gotten around to editing and uploading the others stamps yet, but I will shortly. Probably tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done
Minnesota Territory
Issue of 1949
Indiana Territory
Issue of 1950
Washington Territory
Issue of 1953
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful. I will switch them out into the article.

I was successful with Antietam battle yesterday, referencing the guideline from the USPS "Fair use exception" for noncommercial purposes... It says, Users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, ... [and use language like] ... © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved., so in the source box, I placed " United States Postal Service®, © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved." On the fourth try, success. But because there is no feedback, I do not know if that was what reviewers were waiting for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: If the stamp was issued before 1978, it came from the U.S. Post Office, not the USPS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
We're good. I may have overlooked the second Marquette - explorer stamp, but I've collected almost all related to U.S. territories, settlement, founders and explorers -- the data base of sixty-odd stamps for "U.S. territories on postage stamps" to date is pre-1978.
I held up on any more uploads in U.S. territories project until a routine for fair usage is figured out. In January 1978 there is a Capt. James Cook exploring Hawaii, 2008-20010 Flags of our Nation series have five territory flags: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands... so there is more than the stamps I have in hand to feature later on --- based on the leads in the Scott Specialized Catalogue. There is still a couple day's work for some more narrative and organization to do before launch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I find myself slowly getting back into philately around here. I just uploaded a hi-res image of the Leif Erikson stamp. You can view it at my 'Gallery of Uploads'. Check it out in full view. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts appreciated in Talk:United States[edit]

Hello, I see you have been active today. It would be nice if you contributed any thoughts, concerns or approval to the final proposal for the Cold War section. There were a total of 3 proposals (one initially from me and two alternate from VictorD7) and after a little more discussion we came up with a final draft combining our concerns which is the fourth/last one. There is also the trimming of the Contemporary history section below that. Even though it's already short I still wanted it to conform with the "Big Picture" formula we have agreed on. Me, Victor and Philpill are the only ones who contributed thoughts so far, and even if you just commented that you agree with the proposals, it would look better if more than 2-3 people contributed to give an impression of consensus so I can go ahead with implementation. Cadiomals (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on stamps[edit]

I moved your section in Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico on stamps as it is really more suitable for a topical article and didn't belong where it was. In particular, the stamp images were not fair use for the article subject and would probably have been deleted eventually, whereas they are fair use in a topical article. I expect you will want to expand the new article to include more stamps which could include PR themed stamps from other countries. Have you considered using a gallery rather than a table to display the images? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. stamps were recommended to be placed at Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico by a consensus at Talk:Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States. How are not U.S. stamps commemorating Puerto Rico a part of Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico?
The only other stamps are Spanish colonial stamps jointly issued at Cuba and Puerto Rico during Spanish colonial times, which is less than the scope of the subject article, Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico. Please offer some sort of explanation for arbitrarily removing conceptually half (U.S.) of its "postage stamps and postal history" and leaving half (Spanish) without discussion. Wikipedia has sources showing Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, organized, unincorporated territory of the United States, that is the consensus of scholarship.
I will procede by linking the new article into the Puerto Rico article, but some explanation in the context of the week-long consensus building there would be nice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I admit I was not aware of the discussion but the content is a topical subject, not about modern stamps OF Puerto Rico (for which there are none as you say). That discussion should have taken place in the Philately Project. You are now free to expand the article as much as you like and to include other countries too if you wish. Importantly, the stamps you included under fair use were not under a valid rationale as they are not essential to a discussion of the postage stamps and postal history OF Peurto Rico, they merely illustrate topics ABOUT Puerto Rico and therefore may have been deleted. They are valid fair use on the new article. I would have thought that you would welcome this new article? I put the rationale for the changes here and in the edit summaries. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
By the way, there is nothing wrong with just taking it up to the incorporation into the U.S. if that is as far as it goes, but if you want to take it further you need the post incorporation postal history as content as there won't be any PR stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Why yes I am pleased the work is not lost. In some way, there is strictly no postage stamp OF Puerto Rico, only of Spain and of the United States. The place never obtained independence. As a territory it enjoys a population larger than 20 states, even with half of all self-identified "Puerto Ricans" on the mainland --- and it is home to a fierce local pride, as you might have gathered.
Back to philately, I am interested in starting an article, U.S. territories on stamps. It looks at U.S. national boundaries, insular territories, states from states, eastern growth, western growth and explorers, Please give a look-see at User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S.Territories on postage stamps , I would welcome your input. I've been adding free use stamps to Explorer biography articles. Thanks in advance.
January, 1978 there is a commemorative to explorer Captain Cook Issue landing at Hawaii. -- which cannot be admitted anywhere but on a mainspace article page, to my understanding.
On another matter, there is a free use U.S. stamp on Emancipation Proclamation from 1963 which can be used as an alternate at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Less graceful than the Togo stamp, it will serve the purpose in the event the Togo stamp cannot be accepted. Thanks for your patience in any event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, we need more good topical articles here. I will comment in more detail later. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting article. There is unlimited potential for topical articles here of the form "XXXX on stamps" though it is always possible somebody might challenge them as out of scope as not encyclopaedic. Regarding the Captain Cook stamp, if you find out where the original image (looks like an engraving) is from you could argue that it is out of copyright and what they have done with it (changing colour and adding text) doesn't reach the threshold of originality, you could then upload it to Commons on a PD OLD tag. If you argue it is fair use the test is harder, it has to be essential to the article. We generally try to avoid using fair use images where possible. They often are challanged or reduced in size. The images in the PR article are much stronger from the point of view of fair use now, but you may still find somebody challenges them, and indeed we shouldn't fill a whole article with fair use images if the article doesn't need to exist at all which you could argue is the case for any topical stamps article. Regaring the original PR article, there is still plenty to add on the early stamps used there and about old and modern postal history - rates, routes, airmail, postmarks etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move request[edit]

TVH, opinions are needed at Talk:Leif Ericson -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Image upgrades[edit]

Have just uploaded a better version of these stamps:


More to follow...

-- Gwillhickers (talk)

Thanks as always. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stamp description and info[edit]

Hi TVH. Just some advice. Noticed that you've been placing the wrong or inadequate info in the stamp's description page sometimes. Take the File:San Juan 1971 U.S. stamp.1.jpg for example. In the Source field you put Arago: people, postage & the post. but didn't mention the U.S. Post office; In the Author field you put National Postal Museum, which is not the author -- the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is the author, and in this case, the designer, or 'author', is Walter Brooks. When the name of the actual stamp designer is not known, just noting the Bureau' is well enough. Also, while you're doing a great job providing the history behind the stamp, you might want to offer more information about the stamp itself whenever possible. (e.g. issued in sheets of fifty, with an initial printing of 130 million.) Remember, most of your readers will be stamp collectors, and they'd welcome this information as well as the history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's fixable right? I could go back onto the stamp page at Wikimedia commons and correct the stamps I mislabeled NPM vs. Bureau of Engraving and Printing?
I have no problem going back and adding to information for the interested reader...I started to note that issues came out in different numbers...and took interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The 55 odd stamps in the U.S. territories on stamps category I uploaded mistakenly have been corrected to show the Bureau as author. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I made a few of the corrections myself when I upgraded some of the images. Yes, to edit the image info, click on the given image and then click on the Summary section below the image. In the mark up you will see description=, source= and author=, with the information following the equals sign. Just edit the info like you would any other markup and save. Easy stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
The best of Wikipedia is collaborative. thanks. Please note the discussion below with Philafrenzy on categorization...I would appreciate any insight. Based on his direction, I propose to launch into a categorization and clean up into subcategories for "History of the United States on stamps" -- I'd also like to put together an exhaustive category of "U.S. trains on stamps" next... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States on stamps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert R. Livingston, Roger Williams and Jason Lee (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) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography project[edit]

So many books to read, so little time...
This user is a participant of WikiProject Bibliographies

You are invited to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. Just add your name along with any personal info you like in the Participants section. Then, if you like, add this markup {{User Bibliographies2}} to your user page which will display the above user box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks interesting, but it may be more than I can handle right now. Good to know it's out there. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Images on Commons[edit]

Just a note to say that there is no need to add your US stamp scans to both Stamps and Stamps of the United States. The later is already a sub category of the former and somebody has to go in and remove them from Stamps. Could you correct the ones you have already done? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a logical idea. It assumes each stamp can go into only one subcategory or that each contributor will know all categories each stamp belongs to at the time of the upload, all subcategories are comprehensively made for all time, and no reader need have access to the entire collection with an alternative category in mind before creating a new category. Unfortunately I just followed the previous pattern of duplication found there. Is the ideal is to dial up a category and see no stamps --- only subcategories? Is there a policy reference to that end at Wikimedia Commons that I can refer to? Is that a Philately project?
I am reluctant to start the universal purge on my own, or initiate the innovative policy on my own contributions alone. But of course I will cease and desist at your request, as you have requested the other offenders and they comply. At the time I thought there was some value added to have a comprehensive survey of the larger category and I believed subcategories were for specialty interests as subsets of the larger category, which is another logical alternative to yours.
In the event the policy is adopted universally at Wikimedia Commons, there should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How would you propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons?
How can each subcategory contributor be encouraged to upload into multiple categories? Obviously the stamp of an explorer of New Jersey not only belongs in the 'U.S. territories on stamps' category, it belongs in the New Jersey category and the Explorer category, neither of which presently exists. But unless the image is in the general category, an editor creating the new category will not have access to all the stamps in the data base to draw from, but each subcategory has to be explored before comprehensively sighting the collection. How does that expedite subcategory formation, in such a way that it is a value added to the researcher, not a wiki-imposed restriction to the researcher? Which way of organizing is more open, which is more artificially closed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is not my idea. It's well established that we don't include images in both a sub category and a parent category unless there is a good reason. There would be 10000 stamp scans in Stamps if we did! There may be exceptions but this is not one of them. Just check how the images are currently organised to verify what I say. There probably is a page saying that on Commons but you just have to think of the alternative to see why it makes sense. It would give 20 million images all in one giant top level category. Why do you think there is so little in top level Stamps already? I haven't moved much out of there. Although the more refined categories do tend to hide material, as you suggest, as long as the structure is logical things can usually be found. Things definitely should be in more than one category but usually that is in parallel category trees just as you suggest with the New Jersey stamp.
You can include a US stamp in US Stamps of X year, X on stamps etc, what we don't do is put it in US stamps and Stamps at the same time. I don't make any of this up as I go along you know, it is all agreed by consensus over the years. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed consensus is the way to go, and that everything cannot be done at every level --- it is inherent in the nature of a collaborative project. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
There should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a main category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How should we propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know but it is not a bad idea. There may already be a bot or script running that does fix this. The difficulty is that there are exceptions and if you are going to remove categories you need to be sure and that is a judgement that requires the application of the human brain. Some would argue, I expect, that it is better to educate users not to do it in the first place. Try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Community_portal Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
That would be the rationale for our template.
I have removed the "History of the United States on stamps" and "Stamps of the United States", leaving them in "U.S. territories on stamps" from two contributors uploads, File:00Kamehameha.jpg, File:Alaska territory 1937 U.S. stamp.tiff.
  • The best images from Category:Columbian Exposition Issue representing the issue should be taken out of “history of U.S. on stamps” and placed into U.S. territories on stamps, the duplicates left only on "Columbian Exposition", the remainder (cancelled, blocks) removed form "History of the United States on stamps", correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you remind me how to create a separate category:Territories 1937 Issue for the four related stamps? The Jamestown Exposition deserves like treatment. They would not be a subcategory, but a philately independent category akin to Category:Columbian Exposition Issue.
  • The Wikimedia Commons category "Trains on stamps" does not include a subcategory, so there is no link to add more. the sidebar Tools "special pages" is not applicable. On second thought, my interest is primarily "U.S. trains on stamps" as history, and that would be a subcategory of "History of the United States on stamps", correct? Thanks in advance for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed the categories on the two you mentioned to what I would say are the correct categories. The idea is that each category addresses a different aspect of the image, i.e. it's a stamp of the US from a particular year and also depicts a particular subject and also is printed by a particular printer etc. Each is a separate category tree. None is an immediate sub category of the other (they may be under a common parent category somewhere else). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Galleries vs. Tables[edit]

I forgot to come back to you about this. Check out Help:Gallery tag and the packed mode in use on Underprint. There may not be an ideal solution but your articles are going to get very long if you only include a couple of images per table. Hope this helps. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks promising. The table, also recommended by a collaborating editor, allows larger images as an alternative to what I began using, the double or triple images aligned right and related text left. This is a third alternative to explore. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In cases where there are only two stamp images used in a table or gallery I would simply stack them into a 'double image' which you are familiar with and place them to the right or left. If the sections and text become crowded and sandwiched together simply place the {{clear}} template at the end of the section. If this results with a few lines of white space at the end of the section that's okay. This is better than the sections all crammed together. White space occurs normally in printed media, and rightly so. Of course there are practical limits to everything but a couple of lines of white space won't be an 'issue' with most editors. If some individual should have an issue with 'clear' and it means they expect you to sandwich the sections and text back together, simply invoke the Ignore all rules policy since you are improving the format and readability of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on Stamps[edit]

Somebody has removed your non-free images, I assume because either they thought they were not essential to the article or there was no critical commentary about them. I think I warned you that these images were vulnerable to this sort of criticism though I must say I thought you would be fairly safe in that article. You could revert the deletion and argue that the images are essential because you discuss them in the article. As I have said, we really should be avoiding copyright images if at all possible. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Puerto Rico on stamps, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All persons pictured are dead. Vandalism is frowned upon at Wikipedia. desist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't revert it again. You will get blocked. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Vandals should be reported of course. I've never done that before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not vandalism though I understand why it seems that way to you. Read my message further up. Non-free (copyrighted) images are always a problem as all our content is supposed to be available for any sort of reuse and copyrighted materials don't fit with that mission. I have had several of mine deleted for the same reason. Put a message on the user's talk page that you wish to discuss the matter. Generally, if I were you, I would try to use only out of copyright images or you will face this sort of battle all the time. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
This is the sort of battle vandals always present, unreasoned, unsourced disruption of the purpose of the article. All persons pictured are dead. Puerto Rico on stamps pictures Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans on stamps. The copyrighted materials meet the standards of fair use on Wikipedia, although not Wikimedia Commons, that is what the template at Wikipedia explains at the stamp upload, a template not available at Wikimedia Commons. I suppose there could just be good faith confusion on the part of Werieth. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Wow, read WP:NPA. Fair use means nothing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a far more strict policy on non-free media WP:NFCC. If you continue to abuse non-free media I will take this to ANI and request that you be blocked unit you demonstrate that you understand our policy on non-free content. If you want to discuss this we can do that either here or on the article talk page, but the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
VirginiaHistorian: you need to talk about the image in detail in order to justify including it as a copyright image. If you expand the text in this way you could then try adding them back. It's not enough just to give basic details of the stamp and what is on it. It needs critical or evaluative discussion of the image. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And that needs to be sourced critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was, otherwise you could use free stamps to illustrate the article instead. Werieth (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Commentary to be forthcoming. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States after 1978 and that is shown in part by Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans pictured on USPS stamps since 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what ping and ping again means. Is there an example of USPS licensing appropriately used at Wikipedia? Something that shows critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was.
There are stamps after 1978 which show Puerto Rican U.S. citizens to be a part of the United States in politics, baseball, literature and acting. They are honored in great American issues since 1978. Puerto Ricans voted in referendum to be admitted as a state, and the territorial legislature has applied for statehood. They are Americans.
The flags of the territories are featured in "Flags of our nation", meaning U.S. citizens in territories are honored by Joint Resolution of Congress picturing their flags in precisely the same way as citizens in states are pictured. They are not inferior, their territorial representation in Congress has more privileges attached than the territorial representation of the 19th century for places which subsequently became states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086Talk 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted image deletions[edit]

TVH, I would recommend restoring the above images to their respective articles so they are not orphaned and eligible for deletion on that technicality and as I've said restore them as much as needed if deleted again. It's time to be bold. This all out assault on NFC stamp images is ridiculous, unwarranted and even malicious. Again, no one's interests have been compromised. THIS is the primary reason why there are fair use guidelines i.e.to protect WP legally and to not compromise the copyright holder's interest, and this has not occurred, because as you know, USPS allows their images to be used, per the discussions. Also, no one has articulated any actual policy violation regarding opinions on critical commentary. Altogether no one has cited any clear cut fair use violation, and all the criticism mostly lends it self to critical commentary, which is easily dealt with if it has to be. See my last post. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And Ill note such actions are likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing and violating WP:NFCC. Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy, several users myself and at least one other person familiar with stamps have provided guidance on how you need to proceed. Re-adding the files without providing sourced third party critical commentary and asserting the importance of the specific stamps will not end well for you. If you want to start making progress and stop going around in circles Ill be glad to ensure that you are going in the correct direction. Werieth (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me. Kindly refrain from lies and slander here at Wikipedia. I have no dislike for policy and have repeatedly made reference to it to justify the inclusion of the images that have been unduly deleted without any discussion first. You have misrepresented the policy entirely and on that basis have been disruptive, not to mention dishonest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Its not lies or slander. How is File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg critical to the understanding of Puerto Rico on stamps when the only reference is Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010 ? That comes no where close to meeting the fairly high bar for inclusion of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Werieth, above, in full view of your response you said: Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy. Again, you try to substitute opinion not only for policy but for facts. Again, kindly refrain from asserting lies and slander and confine your comments to rational discussion. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Just because you failed to understand policy doesnt mean that I am misrepresenting it, being dishonest or disruptive. Kindly remember WP:NPA further attacks will be escalated. Werieth (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are misrepresenting the policy which would permit USPS fair use licensed images in topical articles. You insist by your own interests, a POV that there be only single stamp articles, where the stamps alone by themselves are significant. A topical article takes a significant topic and explores the multiple commemoratives a society has deemed notable and for what reasons. These are not to be dismissed as collections of stamps in the chronological sequence of their issue, without topical focus and analysis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Topical articles[edit]

@Werieth, the commentary available at the Smithsonian Institute's National Postal Museum has been my primary source of critical analysis of each stamp. The analysis in my three authored pieces exceeded those of any other Wikipedia article noted USPS fair use license to date. I have extended the commentary from USPS source on a stamp at Puerto Rico on stamps for Julia de Burgos, a famous Puerto Rican poet and author celebrated as an American citizen as all Puerto Ricans are by birth. Government sources on government affairs are widely used at Wikipedia. The importance of the specific stamps is their expression of important cultural icons, defined by Joint Resolution of Congress to initiate the commemoration object of the stamps.
I am happy to follow your guidance in the case of Julia de Burgos and with others as time permits. This is important enhancement of the article from its stub beginnings, which I am committed to do. But again, I note the commentary on each of the three articles I contributed to is greater in total and more for each stamp than is found elsewhere on Wikipedia for USPS licensed images. Again, I believe I could profit from additional examples of USPS fair use images used in WP articles. But removing images from the best examples of commentary and context available to date seems disruptive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure we are on the same page, WP:NFCI. "Acceptable use. The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Images. Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content.,, 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it."
In the article Puerto Rico on stamps the USPS commemorated the Puerto Rican poet Julia de Burgos on a postage stamp. The USPS fair use license applies to an image of the commemorative on Julia de Burgos identifying the stamp. It is not for the purposes of the biographical article Julia de Burgos depicting Ms. Burgos. If the image of the postage stamp depicted an ink well to represent the poet, the image of the entire postage stamp would still be used because it meets the NFCI standard #3 for non-free image use on Wikipedia, "For identification of the stamp or currency". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That particular example that you cite, and have already been told, applies to the usage of the stamp in the article about the stamp. What the USPS says or doesnt say about the usage of their files means very little beyond the fact that the files are either under a free or non-free license. In this case its a non-free license. The usage of the USPS and National Postal Museum are primary sources, and as such cannot really be used to provide critical commentary. Critical commentary comes from independent reliable third party sources. Also Ill note that if a particular stamp isnt notable enough for its own article what makes it critical to the understanding of the meta article? Werieth (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert : Werieth, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, so here also, you are misrepresenting affairs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp proves you wrong. --MASEM (t) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Breast cancer research stamp has text on the stamp equivalent to that now provided for Julia de Burgos at Puerto Rico on stamps. The rest is about cancer research, where the stamp surplus money goes, not about the stamp. That is, the commentary for Julia de Burgos meets the standard set for stamp commentary found in Breast cancer research stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know of such a page. TVH, perhaps this is taking it to the limit, I don't know for sure. Is the stamp in of itself notable enough to warrant its own article? Have more people admired and purchased this stamp then have people who have bought a given video game for which there is an article for? Every time the USPS comes out with a stamp, many millions of people across the country buy it. Can this be said for all the video games for which there are articles for? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that TVH had created the page, which has been around since 2007 with no issues of the type we typically see from MASEM and company. Wonder why they haven't attacked this stamp, and page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You completely missed my point here and everywhere else. I never said the Breast cancer research stamp page is bad. In fact, that's a great use of a stamp where the stamp itself is clearly notable (not so much for its art but fore what the stamp was made for, to promote breast cancer research and return funds back to that). The stamp clearly passed WP:N, and per clearly meeting NFCI#3, using the non-free stamp to identify the stamp is fine. And whil e the de Burgos stamp itself is not notable, the text added that talks about how the illustration of the stamp alludes to her poetry is at least sufficient to assume on good faith that NFCC#8 is met. Note that "millions of people use the stamp" is not a measure of notability per WP:N, so most stamps and stamp series are not notable, though topical articles are reasonable. And you need to drop the stick about video games or personally attacking my own interests. WP is not paper so we can cover any topic that is notable, and we have to consider the use of non-free media across all topics equally. --MASEM (t) 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

  • In response to my mistaken claim, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, you pointed out the page in question -- with one haughty sentence. You didn't go on to make any point. Once again, you misrepresent affairs. Yes, the stamp is notable, and so are most others that commemorate famous people, statehood, etc. Thank you. It is only your opinion that a given stamp may not be as notable, -- and who's yard stick are we using before an image is deleted and/or nominated for deletion on that basis? Yours? You have clearly demonstrated why we need to have a consensus to decide these matters, and not from the usual tag team that spends the bulk of their time trolling around hounding editors on the basis of an opinion about 'notability', critical commentary', etc. These are all ideas that need to be established by an objective consensus when some individual feels it's so bloody urgent to have the image deleted on the spot. --

NPM as third party[edit]

You have already been told -- is not a very collegial turn of phrase. The National Postal Museum is of the Smithsonian Institute. --- The policy applies to all articles, not just the articles of your interest. Topical articles are allowed, just as there are articles on individuals, there are articles on events made up of individuals. It may be that you are only interested in individuals in the Civil War, but the encyclopedia still has an article on the Civil War apart from the individuals. (But all good history is biography in a way.) --- In any case, there are articles about individual stamps, there are articles about topics on stamps, and both may use images of stamps by USPS fair use license according to the plain meaning of the WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The National Postal Museum is a joint venture between the Smithsonian and USPS, which means that they are not a reliable third party source. I have never said that the meta articles are forbidden, in fact I actually have given advice on how to retain a limited number of non-free media in these articles (1-3 images instead of the previous 6). Justification for inclusion of non-free media is fairly high. In this case you are quoting a NFCI phrase outside of context. As it says just a few lines above, all files must meet all points of WP:NFCC in this case that hasnt happened. Werieth, (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Insert : , Werieth, The National Postal Museum is indeed a third party. They are not the ones who designed and printed the stamps, and the organization is staffed by many learned historians and stamp collectors who provide information under the well recognized heading of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Postal Museum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── WP:NFCC in these articles is met more completely and comprehensively than any USPS licensed article example we have before us. Your advice has been followed, as time allows in trying to preserve the orphans you have created without prior discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Its not advice, its policy and I have cited two articles that have far more justification than any that you have made so far. USPS licensing is meaningless, the files are non-free and are treated as such. NFCC is no where near being met in any of the articles. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you find an article in Wikipedia where you believe it to be so, USPS fair use license appropriately used? You have cited Inverted Jenny which is USPD free use, and an article without an image with less context and analysis than my three contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Breast cancer research stamp is one example that I have already pointed to. Again critical commentary is more than bare facts from the USPS or their museum, it requires third party discussion to be considered critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If there were an article on "Causes on stamps", it would have the essential information of the introduction in the article Breast cancer research stamp, and a link to the more in-depth article for that stamp, and a similarly more abbreviated description and analysis for the other stamps in the topic article. The standard for the topic article will be less than that of an individual stamp article, just as the information on individuals at American Civil War will be less than that of an individual's biography article.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The NPM is a WP:reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Smithsonian Institute affiliation with USPS does not taint it any more than does government grants to Harvard taint the Harvard Business Review as a source. In any case government sources are admitted as reliable sources at Wikipedia. You misrepresent WP:reliable source to suit your own POV against topical philately articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp[edit]

It is a well done article. Is it yours? That's what I would like to grow to as an editor, to be able to command that kind of depth with some facility one day. If I can keep this dispute from getting personal, after a dispute resolution or two which I believe we need to have now for clarification sake, I'll beef up the articles and then reimport the images without disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats not my article. Feel free to "Beef up" the articles and provide more information and justification, but before you re-add the files let me know. Ill take a look and give some feedback. One other angle you can look into and see if there is enough material is how the portraile of PR has changed over time on stamps. If you can provide enough critical commentary and justification I don't see an issue with the article eventually containing 1-3 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
So one of the items for dispute resolution would be the interpretation about what "limited" can mean. Limited picturing of a stamp issue series, limited as a proportion of free use stamp images in the article. It seems you would have it limited to a few stamps per article, regardless of the scope of USPS stamps on the subject (five territory flags of 55 issue), or regardless of how limited the topic is within each USPS issue (four battles of 30-odd Civil War commemorative stamps). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement