User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
I'll reply to your message here.

FYI[edit]

  • Toppan, George L.; Deats, Hiram E.; Holland, Alexander (1899). Historical reference list of the Revenue Stamps of the United States.
    Boston Philatelic Society; Salem, Press of Newcomb & Gauss, 423 pages.
     , e'Book, PDF

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing[edit]

Information iconIt appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence United States. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. TFD (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have left messages at the notice boards for interested communities listed at Talk:United States, and with participants in previous discussions on including territories, including those who have posted for exclusion in the past, introducing the discussion surrounding a new reliable source, the U.S. Census Bureau chart, "States Area...". That is not canvassing, in that there is no "biased choice of users' talk pages".
You have no 21st century sources to exclude the five major territories from the area of the U.S. in a geographical sense. Golbez now wants me to stop posting direct sourced quotes related to discussion to counter your unsupported original research. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of sources by allowing decisions to reflect reliable resources. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Administrator[edit]

"Administrator Golbez insisted on linking geographical area and population databases for this RfC." Please stop bringing up my administrator status in this, as it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

But you assert your administrator role as a club, "I'll fight". Regardless of the majority finding in the dispute resolution, was it not you who said you let in the territories, you could take them out? At one time you said you would not fight it, but then you did. -- Mostly over the months I agree with you. When I don't, I generally defer to you on most things. That you are an administrator is part of my deference.
As for discussions, I have found a way to advance several articles to B-class rating from stubs, but A-class is eluding me. I had great fun collaborating on expanding the stub for Stephen Simpson (writer), an early American figure who anticipated Marx in a value-of-labor economic analysis. Research and writing about American historical topics is what I'd rather be doing. I have been able to make several contributions to the United States history section and the History of the United States, and related articles. Part of my perspective on territories is based in study of the Louisiana Territory, the first expansion of the U.S. which incorporated French and Spanish aliens with U.S. citizenship.
Your having lost in a dispute resolution last year and lost in a poll this year, you now influence the framing of an RfC to once again diminish any reporting of islander U.S. citizens as a part of the United States as a federal republic or geographically, by technical maneuvers rather than by sourced persuasion. But as an administrator, let me ask you, Should the RfC be publicized directly to the three WikiProjects interested in the United States article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not recall ever saying I would use my administrator powers or connections in any way to get my way in this. I would appreciate if you would stop implying that I have. I have no further input on this RFC, I am not engaging in it beyond my statement of abstention. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

NPS pages have gone AWOL[edit]

There is a big problem happening with the NPS pages. I've been trying to resolve it for the past 13 days without success. Through several email exchangers the NPS web coordinator has confirmed the problem but so far I've not been told that it will be fixed. As I had surmised, they migrated from cr.nps to nps, this was a DC server to new Denver server move...not sure when. Apparently for years they've been working on the resulting duplicate URL issue. They recently updated their page structure as well, and when they did that a lot of the old material disappeared. When I say a lot I mean the entire online NPS Civil War Series is missing as best I can tell, and the search doesn't work, etc.

Now some of the old series links might work for you if you have pages in cache, but all of the Latimer links, etc. are unavailable to me. At this point, I'm considering trying to find the same refs in the current hardcover NPS Fort Pulaski work by Schiller since it mostly follows Latimer. But this will mean removal of all the old online links, since the newer series are now gone from the web. I've completely lost faith in relying on web links if paper versions are available. Red Harvest (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the research and followup. I hope there is enough interest in the battlefield personnel to lend a hand at NPS to rescan the documents if that is necessary. Aren't the links sourced in text, so the notes can stand alone without the brackets? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Personal attacks against you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving my comment[edit]

Do not move or reindent other people's comments. By putting it under Khadija's comment instead of Robert McClennon's, you drastically altered its meaning. I will be civil and assume this was not your intent, but do not do it again. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will not do it again. I understood before correction that each post was to be indented one space, and Inserts were to be labelled in bold and placed directly below the relevant comment. I will not reindent other people's comments again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please[edit]

I don't like hating people. And I don't want to hate you. And I do respect you. I just ... I really want you to understand how unhelpful your method of arguing is. I see you are a teacher. This kind of approach might work in the classroom, where you are the voice of God and if the student doesn't agree with you, it's their fault. But in this situation, when someone doesn't agree with you, the solution is not to just repeat the same reference or statement over and over again. Can you see why that might frustrate people and make them think you aren't interested in a solution, but simply in winning? I really want to work with you, but to do that you'll have to stop assuming that people's minds will be changed if you repeat yourself just one more time. It hasn't worked until now, there's no reason to expect it to start working. Maybe then we can get into a situation where we can actually discuss what form this data should take on Wikipedia. --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You profoundly misunderstand how a public school classroom works. --- I was not the one who said, relative to a 2-1 majority dispute resolution language, owner-like: I’m the one who let it in, I can take it out. — I think you may misunderstand me, I defer to you out of respect, I await sources to counter those I have provided. --- I am not trying to "win", but I do source information which is lacking in the article.
When misrepresented in reductio ad absurdum without any supporting source, I restate the argument with a reliable source, sometimes with a different one, sometimes with multiples. There are now some twenty current references which point to the territories as a part of the United States, — and opposed — is an unsourced database footnote, or a handful of references to court case holdings from before organic acts, constitutions and citizenship were extended to the territories.
Territorial status has two aspects, they are politically incorporated “as a part of the United States” internationally and they are judicially “unincorporated” for internal governance relative to certain tax and constitutional provisions. The preponderance of sources show both, — why do you insist that there is only one way to look at the territories? The inclusion of the territories allows for narrative on the inconsistencies and inequities facing islander populations of U.S. citizens and nationals -- see the videos "Harvard Law Today: The Insular Cases: Consitutional experts assess the status of territories acquired in the Spanish-American War." [1], --- which I admit I have not yet completed viewing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mediation ?[edit]

I have a hard time thinking that formal mediation will accomplish anything. Formal mediation is a heavyweight version of moderated dispute resolution. Moderated dispute resolution was tried a year ago, and the quarreling has resumed. Formal mediation is privileged, so that the record of the mediation is kept out of the public eye, which will make it difficult to cite when editors edit against agreement. There is, as you say, likely to be a difference of opinion as to the scope of the mediation. Also, mediation, like moderated dispute resolution, does not deal with personal attacks and other conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Putting anything in the infobox without full explanation in the article text is just wrong.
My point is that "incorporated" territories, which, as you say, originally had to do with particular taxes, is a counter-intuitive meaning, because the five major territories are political corporations, with American-style three-branch governments, and persons born in them are United States citizens. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so far I have not found the arguments to exclude the five major territories persuasive. There is the unsourced database footnote "Officially the U.S. is 50 states and DC", but there are nearly twenty references to support the phrase "a part of the United States" in executive, legislative, judicial and scholarly sources. I would compromise to footnote "50 states and DC" data in the Infobox for area and population, -- but for other data bases it should be only what the published sources report, "50 states and DC", or "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico".
The question is how to explain BOTH how the territories are politically incorporated by Congress as self-governing entities with delegate Members of Congress, --- AND how they are labelled "unincorporated" -- meaning "foreign in a domestic sense" -- for certain tax and constitutional provisions in many other governmental sources, including organic acts establishing their self-governance. I say both how they are "incorporated" and how they are "unincorporated" should be expressed, Golbez and others insist only "unincorporated" should be expressed until all government sources uniformly say "incorporated".
The language agreed to 18 months ago by a 2-1 majority in the dispute resolution was to say in the introductory sentence, something like, "The U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories. -- note: Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have delegate Members of Congress." Now the territories are introduced later in the introduction section. Is there another section in the article which could address the nature of the territories to address how the territories are a part of the U.S.?
The five major territories are included in government fields of homeland security, environmental protection, transportation, education...for U.S. citizenship travel without passports and federal funding allocations. The criticism has always been that each source is applicable only to the referenced area. Maybe the answer is to list all the areas the territories are included as a part of the U.S. But Van Dyke and Sparrow look at all the ways the five major territories are internally connected with the U.S. and conclude that they are "included" in or are "a part of" the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lots of material left out on 1st day of the CSS Virginia - how Buchanan and flag officer were shot from shore after surrender of ship.[edit]

Please look at my talk page. I have the flu and am not totally together today but I know this history and it is not on Wikipedia under CSS Virginia article. Maury (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

RFM[edit]

I have named most (not all) of the parties whom you listed in the request for mediation. You should receive a bot notice shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
A bot is supposed to notify the parties. I notified the Mediation Committee that the bot had not notified the parties. It appears now to be notifying them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. go it.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 December 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Confederate States of America[edit]

Hello VH. I just wanted to say I appreciate your reasonableness on the CSA talk page. I know you are tying to find a compromise by suggesting a summary of the dissenting opinion be moved to the main Texas v. White page. Ordinarily, that might not be such an unreasonable suggestion. And I may still include something there. But in this case, it seems a certain editor in particular wants it his way or no way, and will not compromise. I have noticed for some time this person has increasingly taken on the self-appointed powers of the editor in chief of any page he contributes to, and has little respect for the editing/addition rights of others. His constant refrain is that anything he wants removed is justified on the grounds of irrelevance, trivial content, POV, improperly sourced, etc.ad nauseam., ad absurdum. So again, VH, I appreciate what you are trying to do; very much so. But I have got to see this one thru to the end (dispute resolution if necessary) and will abide by the results. Best Regards! TexasReb (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning United States, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

Request for mediation/United States[edit]

I've accepted to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Refactoring of Comments[edit]

It appears that, in response to the request by mediator User:Sunray to shorten some of our statements, you refactored some of my comments. I am aware that you were acting in good faith, but refactoring of another editor's signed comments is a drastic remedy. In particular, in shortening my statement agreeing with Golbez, you removed my statement that introducing any inconsistencies between different metrics such as land area and population would be even more wrong than merely agreeing on the "wrong" version of the scope. I had been trying to make an important point that consistency was even more important than the choice of scope. I realize that you thought that you were following the mediator's instructions, but in the process you removed what was intended to be my precondition to the mediation. (That is, any proposal to agree on an inconsistent scope will result in my dropping out of the mediation and pursuing another RFC. Golbez is right about the importance of consistency, even though his tactics toward that goal are sometimes disruptive.) I realize that the combination of the mediator's request for statements of agreement and subsequent request for abridgement caused confusion, and that you meant well, but I did not like having my remarks refactored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

When you reported the refactoring, I reviewed my deleted remarks to see whether I could reintroduce anything, and I could not find your comments, which is my shortcoming. I consider you a valuable contributor, and regret the mistake. What is the language I can reintroduce, and where do I reintroduce it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I found the language, and reintroduced the "Agree with Golbez" section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment posted to an unspecified topic at Talk:Americans[edit]

Your last post at Talk:Americans ended up at the bootom of the page (under the reference list). I'm not sure which thread it was intended for so for now I just set it off with a question mark. Please move the comment to whatever thread you intended it to be posted to. Thank you. Sparkie82 (tc) 22:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)