User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 9

CSA edit

I am happy to catch such errors, or perhaps nonsense or even vandalism would be a better way to put it. The user who placed the edit has left a few edits of the same nature on different subjects in the past. My main area of substantive contribution has been American history, especially colonial Virginia, American Revolution and American Civil War. I also have done quite a bit of vandal reversion in the last year and a half. Vandalism would destroy Wikipedia very quickly if it were not reverted.

Many people keep watch, at least from watchlists, but there are times when vandalism that Cluebot won't catch can sneak through. It is a shame that people who might be making more substantive contributions are diverted by vandalism. It is a tough call to decide whether to protect the content, and the credibility of the content, that exists or to expand upon it but leave the content more vulnerable. I am not sure about the answer but I think I will probably cut back on the vandalism patrol, especially during the summer when there seems to be less of it.

Thanks for all of you contributions, which I have seen in quite a few articles that I have visited or briefly edited or commented on. Donner60 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Contextual significance

I posted these thoughts on my talk page but I add them here too to be sure that you see them soon.

The article is about the depiction of important persons and events in Virginia history on U.S. postage stamps. This stamp shows how the Postal Service depicted a notable event in Virginia history, the ratification of the U.S. constitution. It was issued for the bicentennial of the event but that fact is not shown in any way on the stamp so the stamp is not about the bicentennial event itself. (I would suppose stamps were issued for all 13 states.) Without a picture of the stamp, all you can have is a description. It certainly adds significantly to the context, and to the education value of the article, to show the actual image. It increases the understanding of the reader as to how the Postal Service depicted the event on the stamp. The image is used to show how the Postal Service depicted the event on the stamp, not as image to support an article or story about the event itself.

Contextual significance relates to the article topic, particular kinds of stamps. These are stamps that show persons and events in Virginia history. It is not about the events themselves. The events must be described briefly in order to show that the stamp in fact depicts a notable, historical event. Otherwise, all you would have is a collage of stamp images. But the stamp is not meant to support a description of the event, except in the broad sense that the image on the stamp has to have some relation to it or the stamp itself has no meaning or context. You in fact are identifying the stamp and the context in which it was issued, not the event shown on it.

I think you are correct. I have put my thoughts on this into my own words with an eye on the contextual significance point and some of the other points made in the WP Non-free content article. That's how I understand the point and can best describe it in this situation.

I hope this is of some use to you. You can certainly use these ideas or any point you can make from them. You asked for my opinion, not any sort of participation in the RfC. I think I should refrain from participating directly so no accusation of canvassing could be made. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to show at the RfC. I think there is a three-count limit which I have met if you count RfC notice to history and social-culture and notice to WP:STAMP. The discussion has so far advanced my understanding of stamp narratives considerably again, just as did the first trial where I had mostly posted just a brief identification of a stamp being issued. I am going to acquire the Encyclopedia of US stamps and stamp collecting, not available in my local library system, to further enhance the artistic and postal elements of a stamp description to meet additional expectations. The retirement budget requires I delay planting the next flowering crabapple tree. If this RfC effort fails, I will improve my write-ups across the ten USPS stamps now described, and try again, after additional improvement on my part. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. It certainly is a complicated issue with the determination turning one way or the other on the exact facts with similar seeming facts leading people to different conclusions. I sense a bit of gut feeling is also invovled. It was educational for me to look at the non-free content material. Donner60 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Further there are distinctions on whether a piece is considered a list or an article, whether to consider a new classification 'long form' and 'short form', whether visual media can be substituted with text, and the discussion is stlll alive whether historical analysis can be admitted as equivalent to critical commentary for "contextual significance". The German WP apparently does not allow any NFC non-free content licensing, and that view has a following who are happy to join in the conversation. History of art has "minimal usage" of NFC images, although there may be 25, it is a small percentage of the article. But I am cautioned not to make this a numbers game. Yeah, gut feeling plays a part, and that may be the reason for so much heat in the discussions...calling policing admins "mafia" and such... I have stirred up a hornets nest that is bringing up years long-ago issues said to have been settled by Jimmy Wales, then the interpretation is challenged...with various levels of name calling, retractions, escalations etc.
Interesting that two senior folks who had been debating one another seem to be talking to me... when I tried to make a concrete proposal, some "exceptions" seemed to be possible including my one little old stamp. Spending a week of my adult life on this hobby project, I would like to see admitting historical analysis to meet "contextual significance" as an outcome. If not this time, next time after I further improve various encyclopedic text which a USPS image could appropriately illustrate. My wife is not sure this is "fun", but, really, literary criticism? where else can I talk about that sort of thing and not get eyes-glazed-over and a change of subject? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Finding existing stamps

As you've been adding stamp images to Wikipedia commons, sometimes when the given stamp already exists here at WP, I'd thought you'd might save time and effort if you knew how to locate a given stamp before you elect to capture, save and upload a same given image. There are categories for stamps of a given color. If you know the color of a stamp, you can check to see if it exists by looking into these categories. (These are Wiki-commons categories).

In your travels, if you see a stamp of a given color, and it's lacking a color category, add it to that category. If a stamp is two or more colors don't add it to a color category unless it is predominately one given color.

We also have:

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I think input from the other main editors of the article is needed here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Jefferson Davis. Montanabw(talk) 22:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Due to a UI quirk and a finger fumble on my part, I accidentally did a rollback on your latest contribution to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I've reverted the rollback, but figured I owed you an explanation and an apology. Sorry. —RP88 (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to engage others in collaborative consensus, none of this comes naturally, I'm an old-timer from the wrong side of the digital divide. ... also, it is not clear where or what sequence to follow up on a train of thought... I don't like the WP:BULLY edit war, so now I am trying the Request for Comment, but editors more experienced than me are not agreed what the venue should be, media copyright questions, non-free content, NFCR, village pump. Nevertheless, my understanding is enlarging and deepening each week. Hope you can contribute to the discussion. Stamps seem to be just a narrow part of the larger picture, so it is doubly hard for me, just entering the discussion at stamps. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [Willa Cather]], born near Winchester Virginia, was one of America’s most distinguished 20th century novelists.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

New category for stamps

I just created commons:category:Multi-colored stamps -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I just renamed this category, as its scope was too broad to include multi-colored stamps of all countries.
See: commons:category:US multi-colored stamps

Also, I just created the article: 'U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13' a couple of days ago, and nominated it for DYK. Let me know what you think if you get a chance. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Other categories of interest

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Fun stuff. The Winslow Homer reminded me of The Long Leg by Edward Hopper reproduced on a 2011 USPS stamp. Is that one which might be uploaded because the USPS did nothing to alter the original artist's design. Examples of Edward Hopper's work at Wikimedia Commons has a prominent warning that they may be in copyright. NFC is everywhere. But I'm thinking of printing out a couple of stamp images for private use as a gift to brother-in-law who is a fan of sailing, enlarged and framed in an 8.5" x 11" suitable for a guest washroom.

My own essay into trains and stamps was limited to U.S., so I quickly branched out to transportation, horse, car, train, sail, steam, ships, bridge, canal, aircraft including lighter than air, and soon space, a work in progress, as now I think of adding on foot, the commemoratives of Fremont at the Rockies, or Boone crossing the Appalachians or Marquette in a canoe, well, work in progress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an awful broad scope for a singular topical article, one that includes all countries no less. (!) I'd be careful. Stamps depicting Ships, Aircraft and Trains are plentiful enough to warrant their own topical articles. Horses too. In any case, the various categories should help in checking to see if a given stamp exists here at WP Commons before you decide to upload one. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Not all countries...just U.S. for my transportation fixation... backburner... but yes, thanks, different categories to check whether a stamp already exists at WP... I really appreciate your going the extra mile here with me.
Also interesting is the insight that the emperor has no clothes. --- NFLISTS#2 --Guideline -- is where the "such as" critical commentary is found for analytical text, it is not required for "contextual significance" NFCC#8. Contextual significance can mean historical analysis for the stamp itself, including its subject and its issue date. "Minimal required" means, "minimum required for the purpose", hence the stamp must be shown for the visual purpose of identifying the stamp itself when there is accompanying encyclopedic text. Still working on it, but the pieces are starting to fall into place. Requiring critical commentary on the art design represented is a non-sequitur since a stamp may not be used to illustrate the thing pictured; there can be no requirement to do the thing prohibited. Examples are telling. The upside-down airmail stamp is free use notable in its rarity, not as an example of air rates, air transport reach, or dual color printing --- and breast cancer research... notable in the non-government partnership apart from the stamp itself. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Philatelic E'books -- galore

For a wealth of philatelic information now in the public domain you might want to check out this list of Philatelic E'books. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Good fun. In the guideline for commemoratives in 1957, published by the USPD, it notes that commemoratives no longer required specific legislation for initiation, although there is evidence of subsequent joint resolutions elsewhere. The American journal of philately dated 1868 looked at stamps world wide. Interestingly, if there was a pencil mark by a particular intro paragraph, you were delinquent in the return of stamps sent "on approval". Learn something new every day. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're into historic postmarks and cancellations you might want to check this E'book. Cancellations and Killers of the Banknote Era, 1870-1894. It's filled with many illustrations of cancels and such. On page 3 there's various illustrations of hand stamping devices and cancels, and on page 9 there are a good number of war time cancellations. I'm in the process of downloading (a few at a time, selectively) a fair number of these E'books. Excellent sources! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I really enjoyed U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13. Parcel post looks like a source to explore for my U.S. transportation collection. The more I think about it the more it looks like a sandbox-only project...though I added a couple stamps to make up a Space category the other day... it's a nice safe place to go when wiki-fencing descends into crazy-making I-can't-hear-you non-sequitur.
I re-read an exchange from a year ago and I was happy with my sourcing for including islanders as a part of the U.S., disappointed in its utter absence on the part of the opposition, their relying on ad hominem attack, mis quoting sources, failing to read to the conclusion of sources, denying the need for sources beyond their own POV...which I called out as unethical, given WP ground rules --- but that now seems pointless to me, labeling seems fruitless here, however justified it may be. I failed to press for dispute resolution, because I do not see contention as a principle source of psychic income for this hobby, which puts me at a disadvantage when up against those who do enjoy haranguing as a past time. In the event, an administrator softened the article's exclusion of islanders in a related paragraph further down the narrative ---
And recently, I am encouraged at two weeks work at RfC for USPS stamps seems to have brought about acceptance for three NFC stamps in the same topically philately article for two weeks since. Masem believes the 2% of the article scope can be supported, passes the "feels right" test for no more than three in this case, including Virginia ratification and two modern African-Americans of note, Carter G. Woodson, the father of Black History Month, and sports star Arthur Ashe, a symbol of racial reconciliation. Once Masem conceded that an article organization might justify as many as five, but he does not want to make it a numbers game, but he sees a balance to be struck between "contextual significance" and "limited use", not only for each stamp, but for the article as a whole. Which I view as progress for the topical philately article at the English WP and more in line with my understanding of the governing NFCC and related policy. Thanks again for your support.
On another front, I'd like to learn how to use Word to write a chapter book with automatic chapter endnotes...take the text of my first draft of a History of Virginia and reformat it...there are several monographs on growth of American democracy and expansion of suffrage in the U.S. which include references to Virginia in context, which I would like to integrate into the usual 400-year narrative. As I parse through it I add as I can to Thomas Jefferson, History of Virginia, Virginia in the American Civil War, American Civil War, Confederate States of America, etc. ... which is where I get my main satisfaction here at WP. Happy Memorial Day; especially honor those who gave their lives in service to country. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Stamps

You know it is a pity that many were deleted as "orphaned". If I were you I would upload them once more with a rational of usage. Hey, my friend, in the article of Puerto Ricans on US Stamps, you should add Felicitas Mendez. She is Puerto Rican and her likeness and that of her husband are in the Mendez v . Westminster Commemorative Stamp. [1] Tony the Marine (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Referencing

What I would suggest is collecting the works in a bibliography. Then you need only cite as <ref>Adams, p. 12</ref> Incidentally, I enjoyed your philatelic history of Virginia article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --- I was amazed at how many commemorative stamps hit the U.S. and Virginia History 11th grade Standards of Learning (SOLs). There was quite a learning curve to get not just one (Va ratification) but three USPS stamps since 1978, to include Carter G. Woodson and Arthur Ashe.
I have a little hope for developing a rationale to get a few more -- a couple in the Landmark section might be nice if I can persuade that (1) NFCC #3 "limited use" means not only "just a few, one or none", but also "limited for the purpose" ... of illustrating the stamp itself and (2) NFCC #8 "contextual significance" means not only "critical commentary", but also "historical analysis" of placing an important event in a significant context. However, as it is said, that is not how the policy has been administered for the last six years.
My health requires that I take the project as a hobby, not as a crusade, and having achieved something of a breakthrough with an article containing more than one-only USPS stamp per article, I am watching for a while to see how long it can last, as some fear a) it opens the door to publish "every stamp in the world", and WP will just become a stamp album, and b) the Foundation may "remove all NFC images of every kind" from the English WP if proper limits are not self-imposed by the gate-keepers. But of course I want neither of those outcomes from my little topical philately article, just the satisfaction of publishing an interesting article about Virginia History on stamps. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
While the stamps post-1978 were certainly copyrighted, I wonder how efficient the USPS was at registering copyrights on its various publications that depicted stamps. The flyers, for example that were put up in post offices with details of the latest issues, and from time to time the catalogs they put out. Additionally, first day covers might be a useful means of attack, I doubt many cachet makers properly copyrighted (perhaps the large ones like Artcraft and Artmaster, but the smaller ones most likely not). Why would, say, a FDC of the Virginia Birds and Flowers stamp of 1982 be a problem? The stamp takes up a relatively small portion of the design, and so is incidental to the display of the FDC. If you could show it was not copyrighted at the time nor registered for copyright within five years. That would get you up to 1990, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Promising idea, thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The 'new' media viewer

Are you happy with the the 'Media viewer' that's now used when you click on an image? Not me. I resolved my problem, but you may want to check this out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC for Media Viewer

Opinions are needed at RfC about Media Viewer being the default image viewer. Please help in the effort and pass this notice on. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

New category

We now have a category for U.S. Presidents on stamps which I created the other day. If you see any such stamps in your travels you might want to include them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoating you on war

I am writing just to bother you a bit and let you know that I like your words here: "a good war is hard to find." Historian (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not a peace-at-any-price sort, but I would like a thoughtful, persuasive case for both the justness of a war and how it can be waged justly, before the onset, and periodically during its prosecution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

U.S.Stamp locator

Here's something that hopefully will assist you in locating existing U.S. (and perhaps other) stamps, fresh off the press. If you know of any other categories to help in this effort bring them to my attention and I will add/edit them into the template.

U.S. stamp locator and NaV-AiD
United States stamp–related categories on Wikimedia Commons:

General categories on Wikimedia Commons:

(Some of these categories contain images of stamps not issued by the United States.)

See also (Wikipedia articles):

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Great good fun. picked up three horses, three wagons, three airplanes, one train for my sandbox transportation (trains). I aim to add Cherokee Strip commemorative to Horses on stamps category. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

For your e'Library

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, some of these out of copyright 19th century accounts of Smith hiding in the bulrushes, etc., are lifted with little or no alternation by 20th century authors. Ambrose was not alone in the method. The colorful prose is worth preserving. I would be more forgiving if credit were given. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

history

You do excellent work and this includes your attempt to be fully correct with Virginia's Nicknames. However, they were removed because they were already "adequate" -- "adequate" it was stated, not totally shown or even known -- just "adequate".

I wrote, "know that I am not going to write any more articles for Wikipedia. I started or worked on many of them long ago. Too often they get deleted. ..."

"Adequate" is good enough on the nicknames but not so in other articles where all details are desired.

Any history left out is missing history, it is cast-aside history, and that is never "adequate" although it is "adequate" on Wikipedia when material with sources are left out. This is why some nicknames and other histories in other areas are forgotten history to some generations -- it was never known because it was always "adequate". If someone deems history as "adequate" then they are burying some of history as has been done in the past which is why you and others never knew of it. kind regards, Maury (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I placed a note on Talk saying what I was doing, and when the editor deleted my contribution, I put it back, then deleted the now redundant paragraph in State symbols, with another comment at Talk. Now there should be some discussion, and when two or three other editors side with the other fella, I will give in. If the other fella is a bully, I let it go.
I do not like edit wars, it is not why I use Wikipedia as a hobby. When I make a substantial contribution in an article, such as the United States Constitution a couple years ago, I print out a copy for my kids, which I keep in a notebook. Your edits are still written up in the edit history of the articles you contributed to, so you can go back and recover the article as you left it for a print out.
Since my effort, much of my work is preserved in an expanded History of the United States Constitution article so as to shorten the U.S. Constitution article. My work was not wrong, just too historical for the lawyers, and really, the article got too long. Bit by bit, the historical context is removed from the Constitution article over time. But I still have my copy printed out for my family. Among other things, I found four founding fathers to picture on virtually every major debate, showing four aspects in each debate with the captions, and elaborating their contributions in the text. Much of the text was saved in the transfer to the History of the United States Constitution, but most of the pictures were taken out, I guess editors didn't want to look at the losers. But after all Madison won only 30 of the 70 motions he made from the floor. But I ramble.
The point of my hobby is to exercise my mind, recalling, researching, thinking through issues I have not had the time to do earlier, so I win -- even if the material I research is deleted. I had the activity, I have my drafts, I have my copy of the article. At some level, the online encyclopedia collaboratively written cannot ever be everything I want it to be because of its very nature, so I am prepared to let it go. You can always leave copies of your drafts in your sandbox articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

CSA

You may have seen my further comment on "invasion" by now. I suppose the summary is that I concluded that your interpretation may be technically correct. However, except in some instances, use of "invasion" is now so common, as a substitute for raid or other words or even phrases, even by reputable historians, that it should not be a problem. Unless, of course, it is totally misused or misinterpreted in context. Now I see that a POV pusher has been editing and stating he will restore delete edits, with slight revision, with that misinterpretation given some weight. I feel like I put my foot in my mouth on this. It may have been better simply stayed quiet or even supported the more technically accurate use, or non-use, of the word. I hope it was apparent that I had no strong feelings but simply wanted to contribute to the conversation by showing how McPherson used the word. I should have known by now that something like this would be seized on by a POV pusher. It appears this has come up before but the discussion must have been archived. So I did not realize that the current discussion might be more than a sort of academic discussion on whether use of a word was ok or POV in context. You were more perceptive. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You commented, "Now I see that a POV pusher has been editing and stating he will restore deleted edits, with slight revision," but there are still only five uses of "invasion" in the CSA article. Is this happening elsewhere? I have a somewhat nuanced view of the usage.
NPOV use of "invasion" would apply wherever the actor believed themselves crossing into, or receiving an attack from, a foreign nation. So in the editorial voice or in the Union voice, it should not be used to describe Union operations. The English military historian Keegan in his "American Civil War: a military history", is careful on this point, Lee "invades" Pennsylvania from Lee's viewpoint, Sherman takes the offensive with "operations" into Georgia as Keegan describes it.
The use of "invasion" seems to me permissible when the narrative takes the Confederate voice or viewpoint, for example it would be proper to write, "Confederate initial strategy was defensive to repel anticipated invasion (from the United States, perceived by Confederates as a foreign nation), so Davis called up 100,000 militia; Lincoln responded with a call up of 75,000 to secure federally owned property." Every appearance of "invasion" need not be beaten back, it just needs to be clear that it is the Confederate viewpoint, not the Union's, not the editor's. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to say, regarding your recent contribution to Talk:Confederate States of America ("Houstan's awaited...") that I thought it was a calm, concise and exactly on point response on the question of amnesty. My knowledge of the Civil War is not sufficiently detailed for me to add anything substantive to your remarks on the Talk page, but given my pleasure at seeing your response to TexasReb's neo-confedarism, I thought I should leave a note of my appreciation here. Scipio Edina (talk) 10:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have seen non-neutral POVs on this topic in the past and in other articles such as Confederate States Army. I did not have another current instance in mind. Thank you for your further explanation. I have learned or been reminded of some things from it. Among other things, context and nuance are important.
A writer must be very careful in using words that are not appropriate in context or can be distorted by POV pushers. Also, I suppose one ought not to go so far in the other direction that one only writes with circumlocutions that can be awkward and tedious for fear of provoking someone. We also have to be concerned about trying to write in our own words here, as well. We have several points to keep in mind.
I also want to add my appreciation for your excellent reply to TexasReb. I try to maintain a neutral and factual point of view, as you do. People need to realize that the Lost Cause POV is a distortion. That does not mean the courage and military accomplishments of so many have to be demeaned or understated. Nor does it necessarily mean that the common soldier necessarily fought either to abolish or keep slavery. Yet, the actions and motives of many proponents of secession and leaders of the Confederacy can not be justified by after the fact rationalizations. Allowing such points of view to be stated as if they are correct or even equally accepted by reputable historians is of no benefit to the reader of an encyclopedia. Donner60 (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

ACW Names

A side note to the discussion at the article talk page, based on your username: the Confederate muster rolls collected by veterans' organizations after the war and archived in Virginia courthouses are on pre-printed roll-books, headed "Roster of ___________ in the War in Defense of Virginia". That may be a new one for you. I added it to the article a dozen years ago, and once standards developed, it was edited out (correctly, in my opinion). -Ben (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It is my view, reading over some literature on the subject, especially considering the no-secession votes at first in the Secessionist Convention, that "War in Defense of Virginia" phrasing explains why most Virginians were in grey. It was vain to hope for neutrality, the secessionist fire-eaters misled the state, the term for the war I like best is tragedy. I also like Brother's War as named in Coulter, -- it was so in Virginia as it was in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland. There were regiments in blue from every state declaring secession, as I recall. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Scholarship, Patience

Your scholarship, clear writing and patience are extraordinary. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
You have a long record of diligent scholarship, editing, writing and patient contributions to sometimes trying discussions. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a dig at you

Hi,

Just wanted to tell you/reaffirm that my last post on talk was not directed as you, but more of a thread section guidance shot for TexasReb, once-removed. I don't see any point in responding to that individual directly in the future, as nothing is gained by either party in the exchange. He ignores the message at the top of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about Confederate States of America," and I have to bite my tongue/walk away from the keyboard not to go at it point-by-point. I figure we will soon be looking at some sort of NPOV review where the his own admissions of POV pushing will settle the matter. Anyway, I'm going to attempt to use a "don't feed the troll" approach and ignore his irrelevant/uncivil postings. His edit summaries are problematic as well... You can respond to him point-by-point if you like, I admire your patience in doing so, but I don't see the point doing so myself, since he is on a self-confessed crusade to sway the uninformed. Warmest regards, Red Harvest (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the discussion did remind me that the Confederate Congress declared war on individual northern states, so I am rereading some sources trying to find the citation for a contribution to the article. In a way, the extended discussion has so much misdirection, that it could be taken as a checklist for fact checking the article.
For example, as I remember, most of the U.S. revenues in the first half of the 19th century were from sales of western lands, not from tariff collection which declined after Jackson's time (the Congressional deal was, declining tariff for the North to protect new industry, state banks without a national bank for the South to develop locally controlled finance--tariffs came down, but the national bank was not restored, another win for the South), --- so the impression that cotton interests payed taxes on luxury imports of foreign shoes etc. to protect northern shoe industry etc. and so financed 80% of the country will not stand inspection. This in a country where 85% of the population was engaged in agricultural production, North and South. It may be that cotton interests paid 80% of import taxes collected, but I doubt it. The majority of New Orleans imports supplied the Ohio Valley farmers of northern states, for instance, causing the Confederate Congress to declare it an open port for Ohio Valley commerce from Northern states. Most of the early Confederate war supplies came through trade connections with northern Ohio Valley suppliers. That Confederate commerce did substantially end in Spring 1862 after the fall of Island Number Ten, and Grant taking to the field slowed the overland supplies. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The discussion got me looking at the weakness of the wiki statements about causes in the ordinances. Most egregious is the AL one. AL skipped the separate declarations and instead put their cause right in the ordinance. This is the opposite of the implication in the original wording. I'm not sure why AL has been treated as if it didn't declare a cause when it seceded. Rather than putting some sort of spin on it, it seems most straightforward and just to quote the sentence. All that is lacking to be more accessible to all readers is an historical definition of what they meant by "domestic institutions."
The share of the tariff argument has always been weak. (This is especially true considering the 1857 tariff had been historically low and the Morrill Tariff could not obtain passage until 1861 after Southern states seceded.) Most of the basis appears to be assuming a section's exports were equivalent to its imports. There were many sections/markets in the U.S. so it is hard to say who bought what and how much more they paid for the goods vs. no tariff. This makes it fertile ground for fabricating an argument from dubious assumptions, while simultaneously making it difficult to refute any argument. If the Southern ports were such massive consumers...why didn't the importers sail directly to them? Why pay unneeded middle men and freight charges when they could have carried finished goods directly to, and cotton from Southern ports? This was already happening in New Orleans due to its great distance from Northern seaports and access to the nation's vast interior. Now, perhaps the reason for preferring northern ports had to do with trade winds or such, but it warrants some explanation.
Of interest to you: In the LA secession convention journal there is an ordinance declaring that transportation up and down the Mississippi will not be obstructed as long as there is no war in progress (I came across that the other day.)
About the western lands/expansion, I was reading a very interesting synopsis in a book recently of the sectional political strife (can't remember where at the moment, I've been doing far too much reading lately). It stated something I had already worked out, but not necessarily read in print: Southern leaders did not want land opened up cheaply to settlement by small holders. They wanted to restrain expansion by the Northern masses and allow large holders to buy up large sections of the most fertile land for plantation ag, as had happened throughout the Deep South. Northern interests were the opposite. I've also been reading a bit on the post-war Confederate Mexican colony effort and one of the issues was that even there Southern speculators bought up the parcels provided by Maximilian, making it hard for later arrivals to even make a start. Red Harvest (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Amazing, just a quick glance at Pony Express, and the name "John Hockaday" pops up, --- you can't make up this stuff.
In the Google book, interesting that it was speculated that the restriction on envelope use bearing the old stamps was not adhered to during the "turbulence of the time". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

For you

Looking for an appropriate barnstar I instead found this page..

The USA Barnstar of National Merit
For your enduring efforts in creating, building and composing the Territories of the United States on stamps article.
-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Reverted edition

Hi, Historian. I understand your argumentation in the reverted edition, but I don`t agree with the minusvaloration of the Spanish contribution to the exploration of the territory of the United States. As the first European explorers of North America and an important portion of the actual USA (south, west and southeast), at least one century before the English, I think they should be more represented in the history section of the article. Sorry for my poor English, I only speak well the language of the first explorers of your country. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous reply. There is a severe limit on the illustrations in the article, that is the only objection I had to the Spanish explorer.
The illustration now in use is of a eastern woodlands Indian tribe negotiating with the French in a way which pictures Indians as assertive. I could find no comparable image among those of the English. I did not want an image of conquering Europeans or massacring Indians because the section is about "interactions".
I agree that Spanish influence should be noted. Spanish law and jurisprudence is still influential in the local state and U.S. Appeals Courts in California and in Louisiana.
My own historical interest in early Spanish settlement lies around St. Augustine and New Orleans. Perhaps we can add some additional text to the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
More information about this would be great! Spanish Florida, where was founded the first european city in the territory of the nowadays USA, is the best start point about this theme. The picture created by Remington which I added also shows the colaboration between the Spanish and the Indians, but I respect the general consensus about the images. Thank you for your constructive reply. Alonso de Mendoza (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The relevant passage in the article now reads under History.Settlements,
After Columbus' first voyage to the New World in 1492 other explorers and settlement followed into the Floridas and the American Southwest.[66][67] There were also some French attempts to colonize the east coast, and later more successful settlements along the Mississippi River. Successful English settlement on the eastern coast of North America began with the Virginia Colony in 1607 at Jamestown and the Pilgrims' Plymouth Colony in 1620.
You can see there is only a summary account made of Spanish early settlement, and even less for the French, before launching into narrative for the English settlement. The sourcing was from Taylor, Alan (2002). American Colonies: The Settling of North America. Penguin Books, New York. ISBN 0-670-87282-2. Earlier copyediting took out reference to the Russian Empire in Alaska Territory.
Did you have another source to draw from that might speak to the European imperial conflicts and early piracy in the Caribbean and along the Atlantic coast? I'm not sure how to convey the New World connectedness in a concise manner so that it would be allowed to expand the section. But all the European empires saw the New World strategically together of a piece, and all sought influence both in the Caribbean and the North American continent in a coordinated strategy that took in both regions. From the Native-American standpoint, they played Europeans against each other among their own Native-American conflicts for over one-hundred years. That is its own story of international diplomacy.
See the more elaborate coverage, map of empires in North America by France, Great Britain and Spain, and illustration of Juan Ponce de Leon at History of the United States#Spanish, Dutch and French colonization. I'm not sure of the best place to add information on Spanish settlement, at United States or, maybe the better venue would be History of the United States, which might admit more detail. You are of course welcome to try out wording here first if you like in either case you choose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Cherbourg

I saw your comments so added a few flourishes, to help things along. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical assist. My Google translator says Field Marshal translates to Feldmarschall. Will that serve to Germanize the title for Gerd von Rundstedt in the 'Outcomes' section? Previous reviewers suggested Generallleutnant for Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben in the 'Background' section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I find that it helps to look for a precedent on Wiki, Gerd von Rundstedt has Generalfeldmarschall. Karl-Wilhelm von Schlieben has General (Germany) with Generalleutnant. Hope this helpsKeith-264 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Simpson

Hi-I across this link Stephen Simpson Letters to His Wife Simpson wrote letters while he was serving in the US Army during the War of 1812. Also would the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have something on files? Veterans Department? Historical Society? Many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

New category

U.S. historical landmarks on stamps -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


New category

Death of J.E.B. Stuart

JEB STUART

I cannot find JEB Stuart's staff members listed anywhere in all of Internet. His personal doctor was [Peter ?] Fontaine, son of Col. Edmund Fontaine of "Beaver Dam". JEB's death message came to Beaverdam where MRS JEB Stuart was staying with the Edmund Fontaine family. Can anyone assist in finding JEB Stuart's staff officers? Thank you for your consideration and knowledge. Maury (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

At the unveiling of Stuart’s statue, there was an address found at J.E.B. Stuart, An Address delivered May 30, 1907, by Theodore S. Garnett, his aide de camp, page 8 notes Major Andrew R. Venable presiding, Rev. Walter Q. Hullihen offered a prayer and Judge Garnett delivered the address. “All of these officers were members of General Stuart’s staff in 1864, the last named being chosen by the Veteran Cavalry Association to make the address.” p.8. his adjutant-General, the late Major H.B. McClellan p.9. I hope this helps with a couple of leads, even though it is from a primary source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Two scholarly sources may be of use, Try Robert J. Trout, They followed the plume:the story of J.E.B. Stuart and his staff.
Jeffry D. Wert’s Cavalryman of the Lost Cause: a Biography of J.E.B. Stuart, notes on page 87, performance of Capt. William D. Farley, new appointee as a volunteer aide-de-camp. page 18 notes William P. Mason and William F. Biddle, aides de camp, personal staff when embarking for the peninsula were Col. Thomas M. Key, Col. E.H. Wright. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)



Revenue stamp

Your Battle of Fort Pulaski revert

Not sure why you chose to revert this to something that is obviously incorrect. Did you actually read it? It didn't even make sense, no lead in, missing words, etc. (It's also misplaced in this article, the whole "Men of War" section probably should be in Fort Pulaski rather than the battle.) Rather than my edit being "speculation" as you called it, I actually looked up the history to try to figure out what the jumble of words was supposed to be about, then simplified it to fit the format. I avoided speculation and kept it concise. This didn't seem to disagree with the summary inside the cite notation and the info is readily available in the wikilink to the Immortal 600, so I'm confused by your reaction.

It gets better, I found I actually have a modern version of the NPS summary that the cite refers to (1997 vs. 1962) the sentence fragments/numbers are a perfect match. What I see from reading it is that what you reverted to is a very poor summary of the cite. Brown was the one who cut rations (per orders and perhaps against his will) and did not restore them until the medical inspection. Portals to Hell conflicts with this source several ways, most notably it indicates that 222 were transferred to Hilton Head in November and does not discuss deaths at Pulaski (has a zero and question mark in its summary for deaths.) It doesn't really go into detail of what happened at Pulaski. Unfortunately, the NPS work does not provide sources/notes/references. It also conflicts with the 2007 NPS Living History summary of the Immortal 600 event there (13 dead vs. 55.) I don't have one of the more recent books specifically about the group, so I'm not inclined to provide a detailed summary with questionable sources.

Anyway, I'm going to update this as before, although it doesn't really belong in this battle article since it is really not part of the aftermath of the battle that was two and a half years earlier. Should be part of the Fort Pulaski article. Red Harvest (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Many articles discuss "aftermath" developments related to the military operation. Fort Pulaski was completely secure as a federal prison late in the war. The link is good, your information is already in the footnote. You are simply disrupting the article to remove an account of the humanitarian effort by a Federal officer towards his Confederate POW charges for your own unsourced POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not what I'm doing. Why are you making this unsupported accusation and personal attack? Do you have me confused with someone else? I'm actually trying to get the statement to agree with the apparent source, not my POV. Take a look at a version of the source if you have access. If you want to discuss Brown, that's fine, but it is going to take more sentences than currently there because it isn't a simple thing. (Putting a "The" before "Fort's commander" would help readibility.) From pg. 26, "On December 15 Brown was ordered to impose a starvation ration." This continued until six days after the Fort was reassigned to a new district under Grover. On approx. Jan 27 "the district's medical director inspected the fort and the prisoners were immediately returned to full rations." The booklet suggests only 465 of the original 520 survived to be sent to Ft. Delaware, but this is at odds with several other sources, so I'm hesitant to apply figures without some sort of verifiable notes or work that explains the discrepancies. The answers might be in one of the more recent books about the Immortal 600. I don't have them. Portals of Hell by Speer uses some of the same primary sources to tell a somewhat different but very incomplete story. Speer even indicates that 222 of the men were moved in November.
The link you restored is broken when I try it. Is it working for you? I was hoping to see if these indeed are the same publication just updated. I tried providing what appears to be the source with even an author's name, you removed it.
I still maintain that this section is out of place with respect to the siege and its aftermath. It is not part of either. It has more to do with the fort proper. It is mentioned there, but not really sourced. This, of course, is a common problem with wiki pages, multiple pages covering the same thing with limited continuity. I have no problem with telling Brown's story, if it can be told accurately from reliable sources. Part of the problem is to tell it you need context, and by the time context is provided, the section is way beyond the scope of the siege. Red Harvest (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, contrary to the statement in your latest revert, the link doesn't work. After doing some trial and error URL guess work for the last 20 minutes I figured out what was wrong with it (NPS has changed their web addresses and it isn't forwarding, perhaps low security browser setting might let someone else load it, who knows). Didn't help that the NPS search link also kicks to a dead URL. This 1961 reprint of a 1954 work is erroneously given as 1962 in the cite. I don't see an author on this older work, although the newer work copies much of the same material. Red Harvest (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the link still works for me, but thanks for the detective work. I like the idea of using your updated link. My key concern was to place a link to the Immortal 600, to balance the Fort's Union aftermath as a station on the underground railroad. The place had military significance in the Civil War to both sides after the battle. Those interested in the battle would reasonably be interested in the Immortal 600. Part of that story is the humanity of one of the Union officers. I agree the passage must be kept brief on this page.
My ambition is to put up at least a stub bio of Charles H. Olmstead, who acquitted himself well in the battle, gunnery was so accurate Union construction could only be carried forward at night. Local press savaged his reputation at the time, sometimes reflected in sources during the post war "war of the memoirs" --- that bias is echoed in the title of this article, two-day "battle" versus six-month "siege", which I have been unpersuasive at changing --- as sourced from both sides and discussed in the article, a longer bombardment was to be expected with solid shot, but the Union's innovation of explosive projectiles altered the strategic landscape.
Olmstead later served capably at the head of Georgia troops in the Western Theater. During Reconstruction, he assisted in distributing aid to freedmen. (In Virginia, Fitzhugh Lee went into business partnership with two African-Americans to cultivate farms around Fredericksburg, VA.)
There is also a story to be told about how former Confederates worked to reconcile the races in the new economic order without slavery, including the development of a sharecropping economic system of independent workers versus the alternative in an annual contract labor system of gang labor which was little better than slavery at best.-- yes there were abuses to report with sharecropping... -- But I digress. -- TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok, glad we are now understanding one another and motivations. I agree that this should be a siege. We both argued this, but at different times. I suggest we go ahead and request the change be made. There has been no actual opposition thus far. I made the tactical blunder of not being "bold" and instead sought some affirmation. By the time it came (from you) I was on to other projects and I didn't notice it. I've had a few other ACW pages' names changed with similar discussion but it has been a long time.
Someone very recently created the Olmstead stub Charles H. Olmstead. It needs a lot of fleshing out. I usually start with Confederate Colonels or other such work when building such a page. It's surprising how tedious that and building the framework is, at least if one tries to rephrase, be accurate, yet extensively cite and multiple sources. Olmstead got a raw deal, but I notice that Cleburne wasn't fond of him (reminds me I need to finish that book.) Although Olmstead was unaware at the time, Cleburne wanted to replace him as he didn't consider Olmstead "efficient." I've wanted to do a Col. Moses J. White page eventually (Ft. Macon.) He's a really sad young figure, he was too rigid/not charismatic enough and suffered from epilepsy which claimed him before the end of the war. I've got at least a dozen others I would like to do. Red Harvest (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thomas Jefferson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Clinton. 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) 10:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

Administrator

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

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

NPS pages have gone AWOL

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

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

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

WP:AN

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

Moving my comment

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

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

Please

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

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

Mediation ?

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

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

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

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

RFM

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Confederate States of America

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

Request for mediation accepted

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

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

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

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

Request for mediation/United States

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

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

Refactoring of Comments

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

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

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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

Comment posted to an unspecified topic at Talk:Americans

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

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For fighting for the truth on American Civil War articles. Greetings! I saw your talk page discussions on various ACW articles and can say that I was very much quite pleased with the way you carried yourself and your steadfast determination in the fight for the truth and objectivity. Oorah, sir. I salute you! Illegitimate Barrister 09:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
No problem, keep up the good work! Illegitimate Barrister 10:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Why were you addressing me?

You wrote, addressing me: "The five major territories all should be treated the same as DC. " Why were you addressing me? That wasn't either an answer to one of my questions, which were asking about other editors' positions, or to any statement of my position itself. (My preference is to treat the five major territories in the same way as the DC. I have said that, except that it would be wronger than wrong to do that inconsistently.) I did ask whether someone wanted different territories treated differently. I certainly did not. Why were you addressing me? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not want territories treated differently from DC or from one another, and I thought it instructive to all that the State Department report to the U.N. addressed DC and the five major territories as all equally "within the political framework of the United States". Golbez and Collect had addressed a second question you posed, so I did not want my reply to be confounded with theirs.
I agree there should be consistency, so for instance, someone has redirected "U.S. states and territories" into U.S. state which does not address U.S. territories. But the fact that there is wp:stuff out there should not limit our progress on the U.S. page with sourced scholarly secondary information which is -- so far -- countered only with editor wp:or from primary source data bases and almanacs.
The lead sentence is subject to the non sequitur, denying the antecedent. At Non sequitur (logic) we have Denying the antecedent.
1. If A is true, then B is true. example: If I jump from a tall building, I will die.
Lead logic: If A: territories are incorporated, then B: territories are a part of the U.S.
2. A is false, example: ~ A. I will not jump from a tall building.
Lead logic: ~ A. Territories are unincorporated for taxes and tariffs.
3. Therefore, B is false. example: Therefore, ~B. I will not die.
Lead logic: Therefore, ~ B: territories are not a part of the U.S.
That is, the lead logic is a non sequitur denying the antecedent, and it is unsupported by sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive_3&oldid=1142737548"