User talk:Gwillhickers

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

Welcome! Hello, Gwillhickers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. ... Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


3c stamp of USS Constitution[edit]

Hi - Thanks for the great image of Constitution's 1947 3c stamp. It's a great photo of an important subject. The article mentions the stamp directly later on at USS_Constitution#Bicentennial_celebrations (near the end of the second paragraph), so I've moved the image there to allow readers to see the stamp where it's mentioned. Thanks again for adding the image! --Badger151 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Appotomax stamp[edit]

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


Welcome to WP, always nice to have more stamp enthusiasts! You might like to join up with the philately project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately, where we keep each other up to date with our activities, discuss plans and standards, etc. You might also be interested in my first attempt at a ships on stamps list, List of ships on stamps, which bogged down a little Stan (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell stamp[edit]

Alexander Grahm Bell 1940 Issue-10c.jpg

Hi Gwillhickers: my apologies for the terse edit summary last night when I reverted your change to the caption (when I occasionally execute rapid keystrokes on my computer it will sometimes treat them as a 'Save Page' command and truncate the text that I typed, which is what happened yesterday).

The difference between your text and mine is not worth arguing about, but your text needs to be corrected since 'Grahm' (Graham) was misspelled which was the reason for my revert. It can also be slightly improved, as shown here:

~ Alexander Graham Bell ~
on a 1940 U.S. stamp issue

Since the article already has a left hand side image, I would suggest that the stamp image also be placed on the left side of the section to balance the large statue image above it. Otherwise the stamp is an excellent addition to the article.

I feel additionally that since many dozens of stamps have been issued for Bell as noted in the adjacent paragraph, that the text related to this particular stamp should be inserted into the related article, Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes, where a franked copy of the same stamp is currently shown (and can be replaced with yours). Otherwise many other stamp enthusiasts may also insert additional text related to their Bell stamps, which i.m.h.o. are not highly notable.

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

Foreign U.S. Air Mail[edit]

Hello. I have moved the experimental foreign U.S. Air Mail section back down to the end of the entry as the intro defines "U.S. Air Mail" as "...the servicing of flown mails by the U.S. postal system within the United States, its possessions, and/or territories ...". and placed in a new section called "Foreign U.S. Air Mail" so that it does not disrupt the chronological flow of information about domestic Air Mail which no longer exists as a separate class of service. Foreign (or international) U.S. Air Mail, on the other hand, still does exist as a distinct class and should probably become its own article eventually. Centpacrr (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:San Jacinto Battle Map[edit]

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

Nice article[edit]

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

I nominated it for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
On the left side of the screen, there is Recent Changes. On top of Recent Changes is New Pages. That's how I find articles that I think are good enough for DYK or should be deleted. For information about DYK, read Wikipedia:Did you know. If your article is approved (which I don't see why it wouldn't be), it will appear on the main page for six hours. The quote from your article that I chose is "...that the first U.S. stamp that depicted a space vehicle was issued in 1948?". If you want to request an alt hook, you can go to the entry on Template talk:DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is nice! The Fort Bliss stamp is a good example of the "unique fact" I was referring to previously - even philatelists tend to think space stamps only date from 1957 or so. Another bit that would be good for this page is the extreme secrecy surrounding the Mercury stamp's design and production. Stan (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Another way to view live lists of new pages user the new page patrol tool. User:TheJosh/Scripts/New Page Patroller follow the instructions and you will get a list of recent pages (up to 1000 but not recommended) next to your search bar. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles R. Chickering[edit]

Here is a source for your proposed article [1] If i find more i`ll post them here for you. BTW in response to your post on my talk page, i was on recent change patrol, your edit summary caught my eye :) so i looked over the article, no secret radar involved sadly lol mark nutley (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pony Express - First Rider[edit]

In light of the fact, the references below and numerous other sources cite Billy Richardson as a highly likely candidate for the first rider; it is reasonable to include him thus giving the reader an opportunity to make their own conclusion.

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

Apparently the City of St. Joseph (which is the starting point for the First Westbound rider) agrees: ( (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

The thing is that adding the tag without using the talk page to explain what the problem is does not help. If you have a problem with the neutrality of the article then explain the problem at Talk:Alexander Graham Bell. I know that you have commented on the talk page but it's not clear as to why you feel the article violates the NPOV. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I just looked at your user page and noticed User:Gwillhickers/American History on US Postage Stamps. Could you fix the category "History of the United States". As per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing user pages they aren't supposed to be in there. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Listed as noted. GWillHickers (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem to want a resolution to the issue of adding images to the article in question, see the talk page and edit history for the latest actions, namely, archiving the previous "string" of discussions. Throughout the recent spate of interactions with other editors, one applicable Wikipedia tenet that can be invoked is: WP:BRD which stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss. Gaining consensus for contentious contributions comes through a discourse on the appropriate article talk pages. FWiW, participating in an international project to create an authoritative global resource requires all contributors to collaborate in a meaningful manner. Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

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

Shortly I will be submitting an appeal to WP to relax size limitations on stamp images released after 1978. The appeal will be on the basis that the USPS is not concerned with size limitations and also that there are no copyright holders who would be compromised by relaxing such limits on size and res' for postage stamp issues as the case might be for copyright holders of album covers, paintings celeb' photos, etc. It would seem this is the definitive distinction that separates stamp images from most of these other types. Any advice, condesending or constructive, is welcomed. GWillHickers (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pony Express article[edit]

Just wanted to drop you a note that I have nominated this article for GA review. It was just sitting there collecting dust in the corner, not even assessed. It is a very good piece in my humble opinion. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope it passes. Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


Wow, something of an esoteric introduction I must say, but thank you. I did indeed enjoy the numismatic listing of presidents, and... you know; I actually had no idea where the template image on my user page came from. (I just ported it from another user's page). That's quite nice to know, and with your permission I might use that stamp for my page! Thanks again, and if there's anything you need feel free to come by my page and I'd be glad to help. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The stamp image is a hi'res scan of a stamp in my collection but because the stamp is a product of the Federal gov, issued before 1978, any photo image of these stamps are therefore in the public domain. Anyone can use them. If you have a mind for American history you might want to check out various stamp issues of the U.S. post office issued over the last 160+ years. As I explain on my user page, every major chapter in American history is recorded, celebrated, on US Postage stamps. Esp George Washington. Enough of the stamp lecture. -- Any ideas why Herik's stat page is in repose again? Quite a tool. Earlier I was amazed to see that the George Washington page is viewed an average of 6,000 times per day. On the 4th of July the page was viewed 19,000 times! GWillHickers (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
No, no... I am not well versed in numismatism and it's quite interesting. Anyway, I have no idea why there is a lack of stat data on the the stat page. However, I've found that if you select "page history" and click the page stats link there it works just fine! For me at least... Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, any time I want to check a page's stats I click 'View History' and then ' Page view statistics'. Today, Aug 2nd, ie.on the Thomas Jefferson page there are no stats for Aug.1 and the last four days of July. Odd. -- Also, if you are not familiar with displaying images, all you have to do is cut and paste the command line for the Minute Man image (in your user discussion page's mark up) to your main user page. GWillHickers (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln stamp[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the additional fact about the only airmail stamp to honor a pres. If you would, please in the future use the space provided to give a brief description of your edit. This will help us get the article to FA status, as well as the stamps in there. Thanks again. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I first included the stamp image back in April of 2010 and it was removed, twice. I tend not to make log entries when I am restoring illegal deletions and making general fixes in image size, text formatting, etc. Thanks for looking out just the same.
Btw.. It's good to see the Lincoln page shaping up. I am in the process of repairing and rewriting most of the Thomas Jefferson page as it will also be the second major fix the page has gone through. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your input on the article (my brother God bless him was a philatelist) and particularly your comment about the Legacy section needing some work. I gave it some work today. I'm sure it needs more but I do think we have improved it, thanks to your note. I think the best thing about an FAN for AL is the improvement that USUALLY comes about from it. That said, AL does such a great job bringing out the hunger in us history buffs that he's not suitable for the FA in a way – whenever he gets it he won't stay there long – and that's fine. Thanks again. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children; it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas MacDonough page[edit]

The proposed target page, Thomas Macdonough, already exists as a redirect to Thomas MacDonough. I'll make the move as requested, just need to take a little time to review how to do a swap of this type while preserving histories properly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've finished the move ... instructions were at WP:SWAP. Could you verify that "MacDonough" and "McDonough" are both documented variants and refer to the same person? This could / should be documented someplace in the article (there may be a field in the biography infobox). I'm going to manually resolve all of the links to the redirects, but it would be useful if challenged to have documentation that the variants were extant and used in some official capacity at some time. Thanks. --00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid all I can do at this point is show that all the reliable sources, including the biography written by Macdonough's brother, Rodney, use the aforesaid spelling with lower-case 'd'. Will look to some primary sources to see what I can find. In any case THANKS!! for the prompt move. When you or anyone gets the chance it would be interesting to see what an updated rating would look like. I would like to bring the page to at least Good Article status and that would be a big help. Again, many thanks for your efforts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

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



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

Captured ships lists[edit]

There's nothing inherently wrong with a number of editors approaching the subject in different ways. Doing so enables comparisons and a consensus to be reached as to the best way to approach the subject. That said, feel free to adopt my style if you want to. There's no reason each decade/section can't have its own lede section outlining the background to that period. Such details come under "fine tuning" IMHO. I want to get the info down first and worry about that sort of thing later. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I will incorporate your timeline style, but will use war sections placed in along the time line, as the wars I think deserve that sort of notice and also should have some sort of lede. Will be very busy with work this next week, so progress at first will be slow on my end, which is just as well perhaps because there still seems to be issues with using 'bold', placing the ships name first, rather than the Captured date, etc. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Be careful with flags and countries. Libya today is not the same as Libya in the C19th, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire! Mjroots (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about that sort of thing in general. Thanks, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow the link....[edit]

Sorry for making cryptic jokes. Sergeant Schultz, usually addressed as "Schultz!" (which is pronounced like my last name) is one of the anti-Heros of the cult TC series Hogan's Heros. And he has about my figure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Jefferson and Hyland...[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers!

You might be interested in The Thomas Jefferson Hour episodes that deal with the Hemings controversy. Usually, Clay Jenkinson portraits Jefferson in character in this radio program. In this case, "Jefferson" virtually walked out on the topic, and they had a three-episode meta-discussion of the topic. The second show is an hour-long interview with Hyland on his book and its theses (and it's very civil and very softball...). You can find them in any number of places on the net, but in particular you can listen to the show via iTunes and directly via the iTunes website here. The episodes in question are 795 (Jefferson walks out), 796 (with Hyland), and 797 (the wrap-up). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well this is interesting. We now have actors and commentators acting out their version of what happened. I suppose such productions were created for individuals who are just to inept to evaluate all the evidence and circumstances involved. Has this show introduced any new evidence? I don't think so. Thanks just the same Schulz. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, although I don't quite think your characterisation of Jenkinson's work is accurate. If you don't want Jefferson, try the Hyland interview. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting scholarship[edit]

Hi, Gwillhickers. Thanks for working to improve the Thomas Jefferson article, and to keep it civil. I agree that it is better to have moved the detailed discussion on the controversy to the main article on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, and of course it is difficult to decide what to retain in the TJ article. I am concerned that you keep trying to disqualify some RS because you "don't like" what they say. Please see WP:RS for how to assess reliability of sources. We have represented RS on both sides of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy in the article. There are procedures for taking the issue of the TJF to the WP:RS:Noticeboard if you want to disqualify them. For instance, WP does not consider either IMDB nor Find-a-Grave as RS, because their content is user-generated (as is ours, which is why academics don't want students to rely on Wikipedia.) Secondly, you have made much of Wallenborn's dissenting opinion with the TJF report, but I wonder if you have read his statement carefully. He puts emphasis on Martha Jefferson Randolph's deathbed statement that Eston Hemings could not have been Jefferson's son because her father was away for 15 months before his birth. For whatever reason, she was flat out mistaken. Dumas Malone documented Jefferson's activities, including his residencies at Monticello. His work has been used by historians such as Winthrop Jordan and Fawn Brodie, who were the first to note that Thomas Jefferson was at Monticello for the conception period of each of Hemings' children, including Eston. It is surprising that Wallenborn would ignore this evidence, as there is no evidence that Hemings was ever away after returning from France. One dissenter does not disqualify all the scholarship, anyway. I have pointed out at least two scholars who disagreed with the conclusions of the TJHS Scholars' Commission Report, but that does not mean their work is disqualified as a RS, and you have not taken it that way. Please abide by WP:RS. Best wishes in your editing. Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

TJF report from 1999-2000[edit]

Some interesting things I'm finding via the Hyland book. I thought I would put them here rather than starting a riot on the TJ talk page.

  • TJF completes their report in mid 1999
  • Report is held until 27 Jan 2000; about a week after the MLKing Holiday which is:
  • Just a few days before Feb which is Black History Month
  • The CBS mini-series Sally Hemings: An American Scandal airs the same month. The show depicts TJ beating on Hemings.
  • Revenue for the TJF went from 2 million a year to about 12 in the years since. (my comment: "Yet admission to Monticello is $20.)
  • Author Ellis, who did a complete flip-flop of his stance, serves on the board of a foundation responsible for financial support of the TJF.
  • Reed is good friends with two of the "scholars" responsible for the 1999 report.
  • The TJF used no outside "scholars" for its report. All of them were in house associates.

I could go on with this. These are verifiable facts and cited as such by Hyland. He interviewed Wallenborn for this book and quotes him extensively. Really hard to debunk the book as a source when it's directly quoting people. Brad (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Much of this I know. As I've said, their involvement with the controversy is completely partisan driven. Their donations skyrocketing is interesting. I'm wondering where the bulk of their donations is 'now' coming from. As for media presentations, i.e.TJ beating Hemings, this is an obvious attempt to sell the issue with emotion that plays on the sentiment over the hardship of slavery. Now that they are emotionally entrenched many blacks and others will go through life believing this stuff, never inquiring any further, which was no doubt why they released this garbage in the first place. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you very much for all of your contributions and refinement of pages like James Fenimore Cooper (which can be seen here) and Thomas Jefferson. Keep it up, (and we could always use support writing the James Fenimore Cooper articles, there are a suprising number of them missing!) Sadads (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

naval history biography[edit]

- Beginning a write up on Bombardment of Cherbourg I was struck by the abbreviated WP stub on Morton Deyo, commanding TF-129. So I undertook my second biography article (first was Pauline Maier, a stub made up of the publisher's dust jacket blurb from a book three books ago, with nothing since. She changed publishers? Since expanding it, I'm proud to see over 100 hits around semester registration time, no days of zero hits since I made the first major expansion and refuted the challenges that would return it to a stub ....
- I found a little from online bios for Deyo, but mostly expanded it with a list of ships he served on which I had found online at the LOC, then later a bit more with some newspaper clippings online published at the time of his retirement.
- At first, most of the code in the article was a gallery of pics with ship names and service dates. Then reading into the naval histories of each ship online, I expanded the narrative, organized paragraphs by topic. In later commands, the naval history bios of ships and commands named him so I could use personal pronoun.
- Found a collection of the Lucky Bag USNAs college annual, at my father's (Captain, USN, Retired) retirement home. Really fun, since Deyo was in the same graduating class as my grandfather (Captain, USN, retired, deceased). So I was able to expand "early years" a bit for Deyo's WP biography -- reliable source if referenced not asserted?
- It's been a while since I revisited the site. Would you take a look at it?
- [Aside] Part of my interest is that Deyo was a "destroyer sailor" as was my father, I spent some considerable time on several occasions exploring his ships with him and with indulgent tour-guiedes. My grandfather was also a destroyer sailor in the Asiatic Squadron, also commanded one of the gunboats negotiating with warlords up the Yantse River? Grandmother told a story of being parked out on the porch of the imperial palace pictured in the movie 'Last Emperor' while grandfather went inside - family lore - were foreign women even let inside the gates? I have a photo of three junks in line with sails set - grandfather was something of a photography buff. I was told that sails set meant they were going upriver, as they plied downstream by current, upstream by prevailing westerly winds. At that time, officers could take their families aboard to transport them for stays at rotating stations, Manila, Shanghai ? in a foreigner-settlement-district -- western education to be had at the hands of a school run by French nuns? and a west coast ? Japanese port. In my boyhood, I lived with father for three years at the U.S. naval base at Yokosuka, Tokyo Bay. When a boy went swimming, he came out of the salt water with slicks of oil from passing freighters ... had to keep your head up out of the water ... but I digress.
- What is the procedure to get the article reviewed for status? I'm afraid this old once-supply officer needs a checklist. (Captain, USMCR, active duty 1970-73, active reserve 1974-5). The military project sites, though very well organized, are difficult for me to follow, but I'd like to develop and collaborate to get G or GA status in this and two other military articles - both with naval history connections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson read of it, we should too[edit]

Concerning my interest in finding an understanding of Thomas Jefferson and other historical figures by reading the histories they read, I found a BookNotes interview with Michael Palenti featuring the history of the Roman Republic that Jefferson would have known, as found in Palenti’s " The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome " – excerpts are online at an Amazon Look inside feature.
Related to state interposition in the general government's rule: Caesar was still working with the tribal assemblies and still encouraging the people`s tribunes. The tribunates were -- the tribunate was a people`s council, sort of, made up of 10 tribunes, who had some remarkable powers for that day. They [the tribunates] could even veto certain senate acts, for instance, and they could initiate legislation with the assemblies. And in a sense, they were quite a democratic group.
Related to aristocracy in a republic: It was a strange aristocracy because it was somewhat hereditary, but it also was electoral. That is, the way your family became an aristocratic family was if you had someone in your lineage who had been elected to the highest office, which was consul, Roman consul. There were two consuls elected every year. And usually, they were elected from the families that already were aristocratic families. [The first in a family elected was called a “new man”.]
Related to use of latin ultra party in antebellum U.S. politics: The more conservative aristocratic group -- "conservative" might not be the word -- reactionary. They were really looking to go back to a pre -- constitution that was 200 years before. They didn`t want that. They wanted the whole thing, and they would not compromise with Caesar in any way. And they encouraged Pompey to raise an army, and they -- and they demanded that Caesar disband his army and come back unarmed.
Related to Parenti’s historiography: Perhaps my most successful book is "Democracy for the Few," which … takes a critical perspective of the American political system and argues for more democracy, more reforms ... [callers had previously requested to hear Booknotes from –Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti, Parenti was Lamb’s third interview with the trio. -- The interview includes an historiographic essay in which Marx and the other treatments of the Roman Republic are characterized as “following the Cicero line”, all apologists for the ultras, dismissing the political assassinations and civil wars of the reactionary aristocrats as a few “immoderate actions” against those who had constitutionally won the secret ballot, rent controls, and land reform. See BookNotes: Michael Parenti. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- As this applies to interpretation of Jefferson's interposition, historians often anachronistically read backwards into Jefferson's thinking -- extrapolating from interposition into an unwarranted predilection for secession. Jefferson Davis certainly did, and that is certainly a time-worn use of history -- but it is not good historiography.
- I would rather arrange and interpret things chronologically -- and see -- that (a) the study of the Roman Republic at its end, could lead one such as Jefferson to imagine (b) the state legislatures as the people's tribune councils (in Rome's districts), with veto powers over some aspects of the legislation of general government (in the Roman Senate). -- state legislatures were NOT be be the agents of the destruction of the "empire of liberty" by state secession, any more than tribunes of the Republic destroyed the Roman Empire.
- They were ONLY meant to be -- in Jefferson's formulation -- a protection of the people's liberties within the union. As I remember, that is the upshot of "Jefferson and Madison: the great collaboration" -- the underlined and annotated, cross-referenced paginated and inside-the-back-cover-indexed copy in the garage I am still looking for.
- I believe that Jefferson actually used the phrase tribunes of the people for state legislatures -- and modern scholars, not having learned their history from the ancients, NOR from historians who have read the ancients -- the narrow contracted fields of history reading more and more of less and less -- modern scholars now white-wash and water-down tribune into an amorphous 'representative' sort of re-imaged modern advocate evoking a kind of trial lawyer or Hyde Park soapboxer -- habitually re-framing the past into one-dimension, as I say. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting stuff, TVH. Indeed you are very well read and write same. Yes, though there are some very learned historians here in the 21st century, many so called 'modern thinkers' are simply too jaded and peer-driven in their thinking, if we must refer it to that, when they try to 'sum up' events of 100 and more years ago.

‘Comprise’ in naval terminology.[edit]

Recently at Bombardment of Cherbourg, an editor did a drive-by revert of ‘comprise’ in naval terminology into ‘compose’. There is a somewhat lengthy discussion on Cherbourg talk page, also with Bryan Henderson AKA Giraffedata, who is an accomplished linguist. He led me through his Essay on “comprised of” on his talk page. A year ago, I spent two months of my adult life getting this reply:

“It's perfectly acceptable to say a task force comprises certain ships and squadrons. Articles that say a military unit "is comprised of" smaller units can be changed to "comprises" or "is composed of," depending on nuance ... So yes, I support "The task force once comprised the USS Laffey, Cory, Reuben James and Bainbridge." … "The division comprises destroyers" also works for me, as long as there is nothing in the division that isn't a destroyer. And later, Many times "is comprised of" simply turns into "is." "Comprise" is actually a relatively arcane word and the author who writes ‘A is comprised of B’ probably isn't really thinking of inclusion at all, but composition … “ The 'Cherbourg' article then sported 'comprised' unmolested for a year.
  • Is there a way of generally educating in a NAVAL TERMS sidebar or some such on military project pages for military buffs who speed-read naval history articles with the best of intentions?
I would also point out that the all-encompassing term for military equipages is spelled materiel in the US Army and Air Force, from Napoleon’s armies, BUT it is material in the US Navy and Marine Corps from Nelson’s navies. I once worked for a defense contractor where I could see the spell checks cancel each other out, back and forth -- depending on the military background of the last desk a u.s. government contract touched.
I would like to see a truce between army and navy on wikipedia military pages like that between the Queen’s English and American English, based on the subject matter. Or, a NAVAL TERMS sidebar is needed at naval history articles, somehow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Queen’s English v American English? I didn't realize this sort of controversy existed in any appreciable proportion. If there are two significant groups of editors who favor Queen's and American English I would suggest using American English for US Navy ships and the Queen's English for ships of the Royal Navy.
Also, as far as I know, the closest list/page we have for NAVAL TERMS is the Glossary of nautical terms. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I meant to apply the working accommodation achieved for English -- Br. v. Am. -- to be applied to armed forces -- naval v. military. I went on 'Glossary of nautical terms' to add Task Force, comprise and material, with explanation for each at Talk there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Nice additions -- but I see someone has already taken you to task regarding the word comprise, which he/she has already deleted. At least this editor has explained the reasons why on the Glossary of nautical terms talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
So, I made a four-point defense, and wrote a draft #2 as i understand his critique. Not sure, but I may have scatter-shot on the defense too much. Hope the Draft #2 helps everybody refocus on my main point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry[edit]

Gwillhickers, Nobody was "reverting" your edits. I merely wanted the full citation, not the abbreviated one, and we are both on the same page. Straightening out and amplifying the article seems important, as we are fast coming up on the bicentennial. There are a lot of books that are on line (and linked under "Further reading") which could be used to make this article better. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, 7&6=thirteen. Okay, didn't mean to sound gruff. If there are no objections I would like to rename and reorder some of the sections. Yes, there is a wealth of material available on line also. A couple of months ago I created the Bibliography of early American naval history and have been searching far and wide for material to include in it. It's nearly complete -- of course that's my opinion. As general page fixing/building goes, often times I will also add sources to 'Further reading' (books not used in the article as references) hoping others will pick up the ball and help with the reading, writing and citing. Salute! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Have at it. I think you will find that Further reading in this article (which I really worked hard on -- I don't want to claim it as "mine", WP:Own, but -- has most if not all of the sources. If you are working on this, you might think of it as part of a set. Jesse Elliott and Battle of Lake Erie. The Elliot article has not been much developed. And Perry is involved in the Battle of the Thames and strategic warfare on Lake Erie. The Elliott article has not received as much attention. The Battle of Lake Erie is mainly the work of others. While we have to comply with WP:MOS, I am a believer that form follows function. You create the article in the way that the material sets up. So I am not idiopathic on the subject, and suggest you give it your best shot. I am really up to my arse in alligators in real life, and unfortunately can't be of much help to you for several weeks. 7&6=thirteen () 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

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

Gold Star Editor[edit]

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

Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Gwillhickers, based on your expertise on Jefferson, as the page history demonstrates, I ask you to please see my contribution in the Secretary of State section and comment on the value of my submission. I'm new at this and I will surely benefit from the guidance.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangelos Giakoumatos (talkcontribs) 03:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

This article has now been passed. I made a series of changes myself to complete the checklist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for helping with the Kościuszko GAN, I was about to start addressing the issues today - but I see you did it all for me. Thanks / Dziękuję :) PS. Also, I think Casimir Pulaski will be passed in few days, that will make two most popular Polish-American milhist personas into GAs :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

St Helena (1814 ship)[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers, St Helena was captured on 6 April 1830, but the pirates then left her after they couldn't sink her, but thought that she would sink. Her surviving crew reclaimed her later that day after the pirates had left. St Helena left the HEIC's ownership later that year, but then went on to have a long commercial career. I have added the 1830 year to the paragraph on her departure from St Helena, so that should clarify things; thanks for the heads-up. (As I am sure you have found, after one has worked on an article long enough, one knows what should be there, so one no longer necessarily sees what actually is or isn't there.) What are your criteria for including a vessel on your captured list? So many vessels were capture in the 19th century that any full list could be enormous. What are you looking for and what don't you want? That'll give me some guidelines on what I should add to your list as I work on articles. Regards. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you probably know I created the List of ships captured in the 19th century article and added the bulk of its content, citations and sources but I don't own the article. Yes, as there are thousands of captured ships, I try to include those that are of course famous along with those that are not so famous but were involved in wars or notable conflicts, so on that note it would seem St Helena more than qualifies. As 'capture' status goes, some ships were captured, used, sold, recaptured, reused, sold again -- whatever. As long as a ship is 'captured' once, it is considered a captured ship in terms of the captured ship's list. In other words, thanks for the addition. The ship has a fascinating, though tragic, history in terms of her crew. In any case, nice work! Btw, I added the 'See also' section. The hidden note in that section is just a general note, not addressed to you specifically. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Roger that. I knew had started the list, which I only discovered recently. I will try to keep an eye out for interesting captures. Thanks for the kind words re St Helena, and for the improvements to the article. No worries re the "See also". I had noticed that before on some other articles and thought it made sense. A major strength of wikipedia it the possibility of luring people down paths they hadn't known existed. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

An idea[edit]

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

Will see what I can come up with in terms of references. I can tell you this much -- the page needs more images as stamp articles go. The page would do well to have an example (stamp or cover) for each of the sections. My specialty is US stamps and of course my collection (much of which is tucked away in albums, cigar and shoe boxes) is 90% USA. My 'foreign' collection consists of British, Pre/Belgian Congo, French with a little of (almost) everything else thrown in. -- Btw, in 1943, the US Government issued a set of stamps honoring all the over-run countries by the Nazi regime. As Poland was the first country to fall, a stamp honoring that country was issued first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice. I added some cats. PS. If you ever would like a fast reply from me, please ping me on my talk. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

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

Thanks, and have some pierogi![edit]

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

DYK nomination of USS Ferret (1822)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of USS Ferret (1822) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reviewer you found is being way to demanding, but if you don't mind, you may actually get a GA out of that. Overall, DYKs require much less than GAs; as long as everything is referenced, they usually pass. MoS details, and comprehensiveness do not matter. See WP:DYKRULES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for USS Ferret (1822)[edit]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sorry to do this but this is not a justified use. ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Louis N. Stodder[edit]

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

Jefferson - Lemen connection[edit]

I call your attention to another aspect of Jefferson’s sustained and widespread anti-slavery influence in the Northwest Territories in two places, the second of which is misrepresented by WP editors declaring “most historians reject” when the source says no such thing. At 1) William Henry Harrison Note: Peck, J. M. (June 4, 1851). The Jefferson-Lemen Compact. [1915 edition]. Retrieved March 28, 2010. And 2) James Lemen Note: Macnaul, W.C. (1865) [transcribed]. The Jefferson-Lemen Compact. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Good looking out. If and when you go to the page to correct the matter you will have my support. Suggest mentioning this on the talk page if you haven't already. -- Gwillhickers 07:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi! This 1916 review was skeptical of the authenticity of the papers. This one from 2004 concludes, "In the face of the evidence and the doubtful validity of the Lemen family papers, however, the story of the Jefferson-Lemen Compact must ultimately be consigned to the realm of myth." (Here it is without a subscription.)
From p. 209 in the last link:
Scholars who have studied the life and career of Thomas Jefferson likewise call the story of the compact into serious question. Merrill D. Peterson wrote in 1960 that in spite of initial support from some historians, "the best authorities on the Old Northwest have for some time regarded it as false or unproven." He also noted that Julian Boyd, editor of the Jefferson papers, had found no record of any relationship between Lemen and the third President.81 Boyd himself commented directly upon the issue to author Lyn Allison Yeager in 1975 by saying "The so-called 'Jefferson-Lemen Compact' is without foundation ... that such a compact existed is inherently implausible and, with respect to Jefferson, wholly uncharacteristic."82
Such assessments notwithstanding, and in spite of compelling evidence, the popular perception continues to be that the story of the compact is essentially true. There exists at least one master's thesis relying heavily upon the Lemen family papers as research material.82 A substantial history of Southern Baptists in Illinois likewise found the papers to be credible, relying in part upon James Lemen Sr.'s alleged diary as source material.84 Not surprisingly, many internet locations continue to perpetuate discussions concerning the Jefferson-Lemen Compact.
I'm short on time right now, but one of you may want to add the cite to the article in question. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Once you find the time, much of which you have spent hunting for sources and putting this message together, I suggest you do this. If you can take the matter beyond opposing speculations I may join in the fun. Cheers! -- Gwillhickers 07:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

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

See comments there about the will. I think we should split it into a new article (it would make a nice WP:DYK), and shorten the entry presently in TK. Since it's your section, would you mind working on that? I'd be happy to help polish the resulting article for a DYK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The first para at Tadeusz_Kościuszko#Last_will is now completely unreferenced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually the ref at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph (Sulkin, 1940) was also used to source some of the first paragraph, along with Gardner, 1942. I'm on it now. -- Gwillhickers 18:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


Dear Gwhillhickers, Thanks for your welcome and your kind words. I also appreciate the hard work you've put into your informative stamp articles.BFolkman (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)BFolkman

Last will and testament of Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

I have created this new article. Let's expand it, while shortening the entry about the will at the main TK article so that it causes no more problems for this nomination, shall we? The topic is notable and interesting, but does not need to be covered in such detail in TK bio's. I am using the yardtick of the TK biographies (PSB, Strozynski), neither of which dedicate much space to the topic. In fact, proportion-wise, both dedicate much less than we do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Gardner on the Generals' list[edit]

For now, I've reverted your edit to List of American Civil War Generals (Union) adding John L. Gardner as he does not meet the very narrow standards set for inclusion in that list. As you know, he is on the brevet list, but with 583 substantive rank generals, we felt we could not include all 1600 brevetted officers. In order for a brevet general to make it to the list, their Civil War service has to be notable in some way (Medal of Honor winners, KIAs, etc.), or have notable post-war careers (i.e. Presidents, governors, etc.). Pre-war command of a fort that his successor abandoned doesn't really count, and to include him would expand the criteria to the point where the list would become unnavigable with size. If you disagree with my position, please feel free to start a conversation on the article's Talk page.

Additionally, if consensus does favor his inclusion, please pay attention to the formatting; specifying that his general's rank is a brevet in the brevet column is redundant, to-rank dates and specific service (regular army - USA - or volunteer - USV) should be included, and his departure from Moultrie is probably relevant as well. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for workhorse content creation and improvement over extended period of time with fantastic attitude. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

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

I nominate Gwillhickers as Editor of the Week. His interest in Early American and British Naval History (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships), Postal History (Philately) and History (Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents), in general, provide a wide ranging level of WP participation. He endeavors to provide topical and literary cross referencing between articles and hopes that areas of interest in each article will serve to enhance one another. He has promoted 4 article to GA status, has 3 mentions @ DYK and has made considerable contributions to rewrites of dozens of articles. A workhorse with over an astonishing 72% mainspace in 37000 edits; his motto is "Humbly we go forth" which speaks to his purpose and his drive.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 17:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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

re: West Point[edit]

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

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

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

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

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

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

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

Bronze plaque of Lincoln 15 cent stamp[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

A kitten for you![edit]

Young cats.jpg

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

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

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

CW hist. on stamps -- update[edit]

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

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

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

Page launch[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

New mainspace article[edit]

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

Territories on stamps[edit]

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

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

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

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

which is presented as

Ordinance of 1787
1937 issue
Mississippi Territory
1948 issue

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

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

New article[edit]

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

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

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

A Barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

USS Monitor[edit]

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

Polish sources[edit]

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

New Article[edit]

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

re: Kosciuszko's artillery manual[edit]

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

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

Your GA nomination of USS Monitor[edit]

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

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

FA congratulations[edit]

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

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

Your GA nomination of USS Monitor[edit]

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

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

Main Page appearance: Tadeusz Kościuszko[edit]

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

Tadeusz Kościuszko

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

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

DYK:1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps[edit]

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

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

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

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


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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

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

re: "Tadeusz Kościuszko Day" - indeed :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
A year ago, you were the 889th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were recipient no. 889 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps[edit]

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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

Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette[edit]

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

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


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

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

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


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

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

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

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

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

WP:PERM Request[edit]

Wikipedia File mover.svg

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

Valued Image nom[edit]

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

DYK for Revenue stamps of the United States[edit]

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

Revenue Stamp article[edit]

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

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

Revenue stamp proofs[edit]

The BEP archives has only the first printing (portrait and base lettering) for the 1871 and 1878 Beer Series. They do have some of the late 1860s proof sheets in fairly vibrant colors. And boxes upon boxes of all sorts of other revenue stamp proof sheets. I have no relationship with the SI Postal Museum, but I could try and find out if they have raw tif files for the images they post online (no guarantees on that front though).--Godot13 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Godot13: That would be great. My problem is, no matter how good the 'online' image is, when I screen capture and save it with XnView, and do touch up with 'Paint' and re-save it -- those pesky artefacts creep into the picture. May I ask what you use for a photo editor, and if you use any sort of screen capture, which do you recommend? On Crisco's recommendation I found the 'Gimp' webcite and am considering downloading and installing it, but I'd like to get more info and any feedback before I commit. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I mainly use Photoshop CS6 (and sometimes Lightroom or others). I don't know that a screen capture is going to yield the detail necessary for restoration and then FP... Crisco is very knowledgeable, I would take the suggestion and try it out (nothing to lose).--Godot13 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • GIMP is free and allows you to save without too much compression (so if you scan your own documents or whatever, it's very useful). Depending on the host resolution, a screen capture may be good enough to work with. I mean, most of the paintings I've uploaded in the past few months are (somewhat difficult to achieve) screen captures. Of course, I didn't have to edit them beyond cropping. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

DYK for Stephen Simpson (writer)[edit]

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gulf Fritillaries Mating 0019.jpg[edit]

Gulf Fritillaries Mating 0019.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Gulf Fritillaries Mating 0019.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

Welcome back. Thank you for the positive feedback on American Civil War. There is still collaboration among editors concerning the intro sentence there, your input is welcome. Sorry you missed the discussion at United States, taken up from the two months in Spring 2013, now extending two months in Fall 2014, with additional sources and developed argument on my part, knocking down unsourced specious arguments and ad hominem attacks on a daily basis... I would invite you to read through both the “Area in square miles” discussion at Talk:United States, and the "RFC on Scope of United States” initiated by Robert McClenon.

RMcC also initiated the wp:requests for mediation/United States which still does not have a volunteer mediator yet. On the one hand, three eager editors have posted arguments in the “Additional Issues” section, despite the best efforts of Transporterman “for the committee”. On the other hand, the three opponents of territorial inclusion outvoted by a 2-to-1 margin from a year and a half ago have signed up to participate: Golbez, TFD and Bkonrad (older≠wiser). RightCowLeftCoast recently joined of his own initiative and Collect also from the 2013 Dispute Resolution is participating. I am hoping a mediated dispute will carry the outcome onto the article main space this time without Golbez reverting three editors eight times until they give up as before. I argue for noting "50 states, DC and five territories" in the area and population of the United States Infobox, footnoting "50 states and DC" figures. Both TFD and Bkonrad have tentatively agreed to footnoting the totals including the five major territories, which is a compromise of a sort from last year. Only Golbez refuses to compromise, claiming thousands of WP articles will have to be amended. Is this still a subject of interest?

  • WP has international readers. Territories have an INTERNATIONAL status and a domestic status. For international readers the U.S. is a ‘“sole person” conducting the international affairs of 50 states, DC and five territories. POTUS is the Head of State for all. Internationally, the five territories are “a part of the United States” as polities within defined U.S. territory with a permanent population of U.S. nationality. --- This much seems to be stipulated by both sides, discounted by excluders, seen as governing by includers.
  • WP has general readers. Territories have a dual DOMESTIC status, a) they are politically "a part of the U.S." with locally self-governing polities of U.S. citizens and nationals, with delegate Members of Congress, organic acts, constitutions and referendums for political union, --- in this, "a part of the U.S." is contested --- AND b) they are judicially “unincorporated” for certain taxes and constitutional provisions until Congress extends those to the territories. --- this is stipulated by both sides, discounted by includers, seen as governing by excluders.
The article should not represent territories as only one part of their two characters, but narrate both international and dual domestic aspects. --- older≠wiser Bkonrad has gently explained to me that this is "too murky", or "scholarly" a proposition to carry on Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry[edit]

To you and yours
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Fuochi d'artificio.gif

Dear Gwillhickers,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

2014 Year In Review Awards[edit]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Pre-dated painting stamp.[edit]

At [2] the stamp image of a pre-dated painting Vicksburg battle 2013 U.S. stamp.jpg is being challenged as an unfree file. Please add your comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: -- Okay I'll look into it. Does the USPS claim to have an actual copyright over this image? Meanwhile, since you once checked in to the debate on the Grant page over G.O.#11, you might be interested in the mediation. We're discussing what and what not to included. Comments are welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

re USA[edit]

"simply because no one else owns these territories and possessions which are not countries in of themselves. Ergo, they are part of the United States."

I just wanted to point out that is in fact possible for a region to not be a country yet not part of another. The Isle of Man is explicitly not part of the United Kingdom, but it is still a possession thereof. I think the Channel Islands also fall into this. --Golbez (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Going to the source[edit]

So, I finally got some help from my daughter with a gmail account, -- I've lost the facility I once had with an account at work -- and asked the Post Office about its copyright policy for using stamp images on Wikipedia, published by a non-profit foundation. The answer is:

The following uses of copyrighted material generally do not require prior approval from Integration and Planning:

663.31 Fair Use Exceptions

The use of stamp images, brochures, print advertisements, or other copyrighted materials for educational and news reporting purposes generally do not require prior approval from Integration and Planning. The Postal Service does not require a license for an educational use that is noncommercial and limited to teaching, scholarship, and research. Likewise, it does not require one for the reporting of current news in newspapers, news magazines, news journals, and other media.

For the aforementioned uses, users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service, and include language crediting the Postal Service and noting its rights, such as: “ United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.” All aforementioned uses must consist of the unaltered, original image or text as issued or published by the Postal Service. Any modification or alteration to an image or to text constitutes an unauthorized use.

It seems to me I can use download images from the Smithsonian freely including recent issues. The article Puerto Rico on stamps is to show images as current news in an online encyclopedia. The fear of image misuse for commercial purposes is accounted for by “ United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.” Do you read #663.31 in the same way? Basically, WP and Wikicommons are prohibited from cropping or otherwise altering the total stamp image as copyrighted by the Postal Service, and otherwise it can represent the total image with attribution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Didn't we had this debate on Wiki' Media some time ago? We even linked to the USPS web page that said using stamp images was okay for educational purposes. After weeks of debating all we did it seems was go around in circles. i.e.There will always be someone it seems who will challenge these images on the basis of copyright laws, regardless of the permission given by the USPS. Is there some new development that I missed? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I am receiving the same response again, even with a more elaborated quote than the previous link. I thought that the additional blanket permission for news source publication found in the answer to my email would allow stamps in the same way photos of celebrities from the AP (with attribution at wikicommons) get into WP biographies. Stamp images are published online by the postal service, as well as copied by news outlets for public domain distribution. I make no alteration for profitable use, and give the same USPS protections notice for any subsequent user as the USPS uses. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


Cheers! (3162940696).jpg Super Mediation Particpant Award
Thank you for your dedication, patience and flexibility at mediation. Cheers! -- KeithbobTalk 20:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Louisiana Purchase[edit]

Ellis, 2008, p.208, says "the most fertile tract of land on the planet" -- not 'some of the most'

If that's true, then you need to quote the relevant portions, as that is not a paraphrase. Are you the one who added the original content? If so, you need to read up on how to properly paraphrase. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Just getting the facts straight as it clearly says in Ellis, 2008, p. 208. Btw, the Purchased area happens to be so -- the largest tract of fertile land on the planet. Just so you know. Will edit so as to avoid any close paraphrasing issues. Btw, why are you posting here? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm editing here because I can accomplish more on a one on one basis, as both the review and article talk page have become too long. I would be more than happy to provide you with links explaining when to paraphrase and when to quote. To demonstrate the problem:

Cited content
  • the most fertile tract of land on Earth.
Cited quote
  • the most fertile tract of land on the planet

Changing "Earth" to "planet" is an act of paraphrasing, but it's not enough because the material is identical to the quote. If you can't rewrite the whole sentence in your own words, then you have to quote. If there are other instances of this problem, then you will need to identify or fix them. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

See my last couple of edits to this effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI... I see that Hoppyh reverted a recent addition you made. Instead of discussing it on talk, you edit warred the addition back in. Are you familiar with WP:BRD? If so, why aren't you following it? Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The matter is over, so this complaint really lends itself more to antagonism than it does to resolving any issues. Restoring content that was deleted, once, isn't considered an edit war, everyone does it from time to time, as you must know. Have you had this discussion with Hoppy, since he was the one that made the revert initially? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson article[edit]

Thanks Gwillhickers for the thanks on my edits in the Thomas Jefferson article. Trying to get Jefferson to GA and FA. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And from me as well :-) Very unexpected! I hope these lines survive this time, it looked to me like there had been some sanitizing of history going on (SH being demoted to a few scattered notes and one line in the lede). KarlFrei (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Howard Henry Peckham[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 18 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Howard Henry Peckham, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that historian Howard Henry Peckham discovered that American Revolutionary War deaths were much higher than previously assumed, totaling about 25,000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Henry Peckham. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Howard Henry Peckham), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed![edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Andrew McClary[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Andrew McClary at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dearborn-Putnam controversy[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Dearborn-Putnam controversy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Pedant calling[edit]

Hello, I see you have a DYK on the way to the main page, congrats. Just a quick MOS query, shouldn't it be an en-dash rather than a hyphen, i.e. Dearborn–Putnam controversy rather than Dearborn-Putnam controversy? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm not sure why en-dash and em-dash are used other than to assure that a two word term doesn't become separated because of word-wrap. That's not likely to happen with the title or the first term in a sentence. I'm also wondering that if we employ an en-dash in the article 'title' that it may effect search results. In any case, let me look into this a bit further and see if there are any policy violations or other pressing issues involved here. Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I was thinking of WP:DASH when I wrote the message, that may be instructive. Either way, no issues, nothing major, just if it is a MOS issue, expect it to be highlighted by some keen observers in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

TJ edit on historiography[edit]

In trying to edit the TJ historiography paragraph, I somehow introduced a cite error message to one of your previous sentences. Can you fix it? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dearborn-Putnam controversy[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 30 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dearborn-Putnam controversy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dearborn-Putnam controversy erupted when Henry Dearborn accused Israel Putnam (both pictured) of cowardice 43 years after the Battle of Bunker Hill? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dearborn-Putnam controversy. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dearborn-Putnam controversy), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Andrew McClary[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 17 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Andrew McClary, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Battle of Bunker Hill, Andrew McClary (pictured) was both the highest ranking colonial officer to die and the last soldier killed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew McClary. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Andrew McClary), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Mason Locke Weems move[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Parson Weems a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Mason Locke Weems. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Godsy}} to your message, and signing it. Thank you. Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Godsy: I once tried to move a page to a name with a page that already had a redirect (existing page) and if I remember correctly, it couldn't be done. In any case, thanks for bringing this to my attention and taking care of loose ends. One question, I discussed the move (change of content) in regards to Mason Weems' most used name, that the Weems biography now had this name, used by Weems himself in his publications and elsewhere. Can't seem to find this discussion, it's not listed in either of the Talk edit summeries. Is there any way to restore this discussion and explanation? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a redirect has non-trivial history that blocks a move. In the even that you are prevented from performing an uncontroversial move, you can place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. As far as the missing discussion goes, I took a quick glance at your contribution history, and didn't see any off hand. It could have gotten lost in the history merge; I'll throw a ping to Jenks24, who performed the history move, just in case.Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
In addition to what Godsy says (all correct), you need to be an admin or page mover to make those kinds of moves. We're only too happy to help if requests are made, but cut-and-paste moves are a no go. On the missing discussion, I had to delete it in order to bring over the old talk page. We can't have both and the old talk page had a substantial history so shouldn't just be redirected. I've restored the content of your deleted edits to the bottom of the talk page now. Jenks24 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jenks24 and Godsy:. Thanks! ...and sorry, won't happen again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted[edit]

Wikipedia page mover.svg

Hello, Gwillhickers. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Jenks24 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jenks24: -- Thanks !! Yes, I am going to re-review and study well all pages mentioned here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Clement Fitzpatrick[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 17 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Clement Fitzpatrick, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that John Clement Fitzpatrick died before all 39 of the volumes of his The Writings of George Washington were published? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Clement Fitzpatrick. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Clement Fitzpatrick), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


Export hell seidel steiner.png Actually, I was thinking about putting in a TJF section just for those particular references...see you got to it first. Huzzah! Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Actually, "Bibliography" is not a very good title either (particularly in biographies), because it could mean a) works cited by this article b) related works not cited by this article or c) works by the subject of this article. See WP:FNNR (which also recommends not to use "Sources"). Personally I prefer "Works cited". – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a conventional title frequently used in biographies and history articles and simply lists the sources used to cite a given article. Don't recall anyone ever being confused. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Gwillhickers,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Gulf Fritillaries Mating 0019.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on October 23, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-10-23. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: -- Wow.. A nice surprise! I added an item of context to the caption. Been busy with history stuff this past year, and hope to get back out to some photo-shooting soon. Many thanks! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for John Hazelwood[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 16 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article John Hazelwood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1777, after George Washington's war council recommended that John Hazelwood lead the American fleet up the Delaware River to safety, he did so without the British firing a single shot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hazelwood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, John Hazelwood), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Virginia Conventions critique[edit]

Many thanks for your input at Virginia Conventions. I've made a subsection "critique" to begin the dialogue and back and forth of copyediting. Thanks again for your help with the notes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes on Grant's world tour[edit]

Moved from Grant talk page:

Campbell (2016) and White (2016) are the newest research so I recommend using them. The new research does not subscribe that Grant actually settled the islands dispute between China and Japan. But he did act as a diplomat between the two nations. The annexation of the disputed islands by Japan was not Grant's original intention. Grant wanted China and Japan to coequally negotiate, but Japan having the superior military just annexed the islands. Coemgenus is correct. There was nothing the Chinese could do militarily. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the boat issue needs to be cleared up. Hayes' Secretary of Navy Thompson wanted Grant to use the USS Richmond on all his journies, but that was never the case except for the voyage to Japan. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There is yet another ship involved, called the Labourdonnais which carried the Grants from Marseilles to Alexandria where the Richmond was supposed to pick them up and take them through the Suez Canal, but was behind schedule and so Grant and company pushed on.<Remlap, p. 586> As mentioned, I'm more concerned about Grant himself, his feelings and such about how the tour turned out, his sense of duty and involvement with Hayes and his feelings toward English royalty. I'm going to see if there are any letters written between Fish and Grant in the few months before the tour, to see if Fish may of had any words of advice along this line. So far as I can tell Grant reluctantly went along with the program out of sense of duty to his country and apparently was only going through the motions of diplomacy much of the time. In any case, Grant's feelings in such matters are among the most important ideas and need to be covered, whatever they may have been. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • So far White, p.607, corroborates Remlap on one item, that Grant traveled aboard the Labourdonnais from Marseilles to Alexandria. He goes on to say that the Grants left Alexandria and traveled overland to Suez and boarded the British steamer P & O Ventia, which carried them through the Suez canal to Bombay. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Consult on article links[edit]

At Virginia Conventions I have inconsistently linked names in picture galleries or in text. Do you have a preference on which convention to follow? Use both? The daughter articles are now all linked in both “See also” notices at the beginning of each section, and in the summary chart at the bottom of the article, another innovation recommended in the peer review. I am vaguely aware of WP policy against over linking. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

Thanks again for your help at Virginia Conventions. At Wikipedia:Peer_review/Virginia_Conventions/archive1#Global_critique_summarized, Mike Christie made a suggestion for Virginia Conventions that I thought you might help out with, in addition to the citation assist, if you would be so kind.

"I think some explanation of the political landscape is in order [for each subsection] -- I've no idea what the "Progressive" party stood for at the time ...” --- Does something readily come to mind for Revolutionary period 1774-1776, Ratification 1788, or early nation 1829-30? Regardless, the assist with citations is enormously appreciated. I'm afraid that citations is absolutely something that I break my teeth over. Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite book references[edit]

At Virginia Conventions #Bibliography I've followed your lead and marked up all the cite book references I could find. I am sure to revisit the article, especially for the first five Revolutionary Era conventions to add some more.

For the notes themselves, it looks as though you've used <ref>[[#shade|Shade 1996]], pp. 62–64</ref>, where the cite book template has ref=shade. Does that have the same functionality as {{sfn|Shade|1996|p=62-64}}, or is that a different system of notation? Thanks for any guidance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I completed the notes for books at Virginia Conventions using your format, <ref>[[#shade|Shade 1996]], pp. 62–64</ref>. Next is the book cites for the online references... The Notes section is cleaning up nicely imho. Thanks again for your earlier help and examples. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@TheVirginiaHistorian: Sorry I didn't get to it. Glad things are shaping up. Just for your 'records', if you were to use the 'sfn' citation style, then instead of using ref=shade in the cite book template you would use ref=harv.
Btw, at the Donald Trump Talk page there is an RfC, and other debates ( 1, 2 ) over whether to use a comparable image in the Trump biography. The debate is largely about using a formal/pleasing image as is used in the Hillary Clinton bio. Opinions are needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Gwillhickers. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. If you have questions, please contact me.
- MrX 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC) - MrX 16:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump difficulties[edit]

The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.

I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.

Here is the link.

Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.

Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)[edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Need a cite for 2 Chinese stamps[edit]

Could you do a cite for whatever page they're on from whatever version of the Scott's catalogue for China (People's Republic) #456 and #2996? I'm working on an article on the underlying painting. Much obliged; hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Science and God[edit]

In evaluating the truth of claims about science and God I have two simple rules: "Science proves that God exists" is WP:CB. "Science proves that God does not exist" is WP:CB.

In respect to the variety of views among biologists, the quasi-unanimous view of biologists is that the theory of evolution is valid. The theory of evolution is not in a crisis and there is no viable alternative hypothesis to the theory of evolution. (Hypothesis means a way of generating falsifiable predictions from a given theoretical idea, which also takes into account the broader theoretical background of that science.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That's understood. I'm not one to deny evolution. IMO, evolution is and has always been the 'process' of creation. Or evolution is creation in slow motion, if you will. The question remains: What started life and its evolution, and is there an intelligence behind it all? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Theistic evolution is distinct from intelligent design. Theistic evolution makes no pretense of being science - it is a form of theology (faith seeking understanding) that completely accepts that evolution is a natural process that unfolds in real time, in nature, and makes no effort to interfere with or pose scientific hypotheses. Intelligent design poses itself as science and it is pseudoscience, as it can generate no testable hypotheses. Completely different things. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

US Presidential Timeline work[edit]

Hi, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents/Active participants. The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

Postage stamps of the United States template[edit]

Last October User:Jax 0677 started this template Template:Postage stamps of the United States (plus some others one of which has already been deleted) but, I think mainly due to his lack of philatelic knowledge and how to construct complex templates, it remains a real mess with terrible structure and essentially useless with links just thrown around any old way. I eventually got some time to make something worthwhile and it is currently in a sandbox of mine at User:Ww2censor/sandbox#Template test. I'd appreciate your input on it and am asking some other philatelists their opinions. Suggestions accepted, such as additional links or formatting, on my talk page. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, all I can do is sort of echo your sentiment in that the format could use some work. Don't have any strong feelings about it, but will chime in later and support any improvements. It could prove to be a good nav-aid if placed (or was linked to) in various US philatelic articles. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking and do post any comments on my talk page. The intension is to place it in the appropriate US related article pages, though the current (crappy) version is already in about 70 articles. ww2censor (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Jesse Root Grant[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 2 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jesse Root Grant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that through his political associations, Jesse Root Grant secured an appointment for enrollment at West Point for his son, Ulysses S. Grant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jesse Root Grant. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jesse Root Grant), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jesse Root Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brown (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) 10:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (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) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Point Pleasant (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) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corpus Christi (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) 10:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)