Gwillhickers (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 246: | Line 246: | ||
Your comments are uncivil and should be removed or withdrawn. Please remove them.[[User:Ebanony|Ebanony]] ([[User talk:Ebanony|talk]]) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
Your comments are uncivil and should be removed or withdrawn. Please remove them.[[User:Ebanony|Ebanony]] ([[User talk:Ebanony|talk]]) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::Thank you for your opinion. In my opinion some, certainly not all, of the references were appropriately frank and were based on experience with this sort of [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|gaming]] If this matter has proven to be that upsetting for you please feel free to do what you like with the discussion page, that is if the others don't mind you plucking out individual statements for your own personal reasons, and if you like, by all means bring it to the attention of whomever you may think is best suited to look into this matter further. Then perhaps we can have some real dialog as to what should be done with the Jefferson/discussion pages regarding the undue weight that has been given the Hemings controversy. [[User:Gwillhickers|Gwillhickers]] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers#top|talk]]) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
::::Thank you for your opinion. In my opinion some, certainly not all, of the references were appropriately frank and were based on experience with this sort of [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|gaming]] If this matter has proven to be that upsetting for you please feel free to do what you like with the discussion page, that is if the others don't mind you plucking out individual statements for your own personal reasons, and if you like, by all means bring it to the attention of whomever you may think is best suited to look into this matter further. Then perhaps we can have some real dialog as to what should be done with the Jefferson/discussion pages regarding the undue weight that has been given the Hemings controversy. [[User:Gwillhickers|Gwillhickers]] ([[User talk:Gwillhickers#top|talk]]) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Gaming? Don't know anything about it. All I asked was that you remove or strike out such comments because they're uncivil, and distract from the conversations. [[User:Ebanony|Ebanony]] ([[User talk:Ebanony|talk]]) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==Overlinking== |
==Overlinking== |
Revision as of 22:47, 9 February 2011
Welcome! Hello, Gwillhickers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Help Desk
Hi there.
I've just answered your question here, on the help desk.
Smappy (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Gwillhickers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
3c stamp of USS Constitution
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
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!
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
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:
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)
About Articles on US Postal history
Archived
Foreign U.S. Air Mail
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
Hi, about two weeks ago you asked me about uploading that map to Commons. Rambo's Revenge has kindly given instructions on what to do: see User talk:Rambo's Revenge#Image help. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
American History on US Postage Stamps
Hi, I've actually been pondering this page since you created it, thinking about how it should fit into the system of WP articles. It's a little difficult, for several reasons. First, we haven't yet had much success with articles on topical philately; what are the unique facts that would go into such an article, and what sources would one use? Second, US history on US stamps is broad, encompassing hundreds of issues, but not focussed or especially thematic - every country puts lots of its history on its stamps. If you pick and choose, then you risk turning it into an personal essay or magazine article, which are not suitable for a reference work.
So the thing to figure out is what factual material is going to be at the core of the article, using existing articles as an analogy. (Pictures are nice, but they are never more than adjuncts to article prose... and yes, the wikimedia universe should have a place for extensive galleries, but nobody can agree where.) A good starting approach is to reread some featured articles and think about how you would do what they do. Also, coming back to the reference work idea, think about what facts the readers are looking for; everybody over the age of 10 knows that a country puts its history on its stamps, so what is it that you are adding?
In the topical case, our special problem is that the unique facts are not the historical events, which are well covered in their own articles, nor the developments of routes and rates, but the choice of subject and design process. Fortunately, for many US stamps there is much detail available. To take an example from Gary Griffith's book on the 1922-26 stamps, the Lexington-Concord issue gets 10 pages starting with the act of Congress directing their issuance, through the debate over the subjects to depict, and then describing how the source images were adapted into stamp designs. The 10 pages could actually be summarized into a nice one-page article Lexington-Concord Issue, and I think the overall topical article would just mention this as a part of the 150-year-anniversary group of the 1920s.
It might make sense to first try your hand at writing up details of several notable stamp issues, for instance Columbian Issue could be expanded with more detail. Then you can abstract from the detailed articles into an overview. I'm also thinking that grouping by meta-themes makes sense - anniversary-motivated issues, politically-motivated subjects, historical subjects altered for the stamp issue, subjects/designs that are now outdated by modern scholarship, etc. And again, think about the facts you're presenting that are going to be here and nowhere else in WP. Stan (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Stan, I have moved this thread to the draft page's discussion page.
Nice article
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
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)
DYK for U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Isabella I of Castile
Hello, you messaged me concerning citations for the Isabella I of Castile page but I really have no idea what you're talking about. If I edited it, I do not know when since it has well over 3000 edits. I tried looking but couldn't find my name anywhere on the edit history. And the page is quite adequately cited compared to the majority of other pages, so again I do not know what you mean. Mind clarifying?
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Isabella I
hello, I have edited Isabella I of Castile but I havent done any major edits apart from add the section about her children which pretty much speaks for itself. thank you--David (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Pony Express - First Rider
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.
- Kansas Historical Quarterly
- National Historic Trail - Pony Express Stables
- Pony Express Resource Study - Chapter 2
Tavington-dash (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
Apparently the City of St. Joseph (which is the starting point for the First Westbound rider) agrees: (http://www.stjoemo.info/history/ponyexpress.cfm)Tavington-dash (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Famous Riders of the Pony Express
I inserted a citation for an article:(http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050320/news_1n20ponyexp.html) about the ad which is considered a hoax by Joseph Nardone, the national executive director and historian for the Pony Express Trail Association.
Tavington-dash (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Tavington-dash (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
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).
- Listed as noted. GWillHickers (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Contact
John, aka "GWillHickers", I am pleased to enter into a discussion with you on any topic. Your earnest elaboration on the reasoning behind your latest foray into the realm of Wikiwacky world, elicited a rather curt appraisal on my part; forgive my cursory reference to you as being absorbed in philatelic subjects. Although as you can possibly discern from my profile on Wikipedia or other Internet sites, I also have a passionate interest, that being aviation which has been alternately an avocation and lately, the source of my livelihood. Full disclosure forthwith: Like many others, I choose to participate in this project, but I do have an ulterior motive. As an aviation aficionado, my submissions are not entirely altruistic as I use the forum as a writing and editing exercise, to "keep sharp". Many of the articles I have submitted and even some portions of my books have appeared on Wikipedia, being worked up into a suitable form before proceeding to publication. Shhhhh!, don't tell anyone! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
another entity
I went to review the situation and comment there because I was asked to review the situation as an administrator. I was away when the message was sent to me so I was delayed in responding but all I did was follow up on a request I received for admin assistance. Sarah 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Gwillhickers. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- Message was relocated to sender's user page, along with my reply, as it was over something that has long been settled. Sender also opted to delete the thread on her page. GWillHickers (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Relaxing 'fair-use' size limitations for 1978+ stamps
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
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
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)
Madison Stamp
Original 2001 Madison stamp was upgraded and is now orphaned.
Archived
Interesting...
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)
- 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)
Please do not use Commons categories for files uploaded in Wikipedia only. They are supposed to be uploaded in Category:Fair use images of United States postage. Moreover, this file already exists on Commons: commons:File:Stamp US 1964 5c Kennedy.jpg because it's in PD. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Issue
Please stop using the uncommon word "issue" instead of stamp or postage stamp which provides a proper and easily understandable meaning. The word issue, often used to refer to offspring or a problem, does not convey the meaning intended to regular readers when reading philatelic articles: in fact I sometimes have to think what you mean. Simplicity is better. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Before the term issue is ever used by itself the term stamp issue or postage stamp is used before it, however in all probability there may be exceptions and if and where they occur I will render the term accordingly. GWillHickers (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Around here we use the common name. If you can show, supported by reliable sources that this is the current common name, I am sure we will be happy to use it in future articles. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Archived
Grant Postage stamps
Thanks. The stamp section is good. Maybe 3-5 stamps would be alright to put in the section. Any appropriate historical addition to USG is good. He had a commemortive silver coin, maybe others, gold or silver. A USG coin section would be good. That would be a good additional section. What is interesting is the money used back then. Possibly a section on Coinage when Grant was President would be good including paper money. It is hard to find pictures of money from the 1870's, particularly the $1,000 bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
...
Orphaned non-free image File:James KPolk 1995 Issue-32c.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:James KPolk 1995 Issue-32c.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson
Hello, Gwillhickers! I recently made this change to the article, but was reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Frederikke Federspiel
I reverted your edits on Frederikke Federspiel, I couldn't see what the relevance of "Canada 3000 Inc" was to the article. If you were just testing, you should use the sandbox. Apau98 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson with slavery
You made an edit [2] claiming "Prior sentence was a blatant contradiction. ' '..did not oppose slavery as a politician, although as President he did sign the law that banned the slave trade..' '??" WP:BOP "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The sources cited indicate that there is no "contradiction", blatant or otherwise. Many pro-slavery people supported a ban on the slave trade in 1807 to protect slavery. Please review WP:V policy where it says that "the source [must] directly support the material in question."
BTW, please pay attention to the talk page because you'll see this particular sentence is currently being debated.[3] You can add your input, but please refrain from making unjustified edits without consensus, particularly those that lack historical accuracy or directly contradict the sources cited. This is why I reverted your edit [4]Ebanony (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- All that said, the sentence as it stood was a contradiction. It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it. In your effort to maintain historical accuracy please try not to overlook the glaringly obvious. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- "It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it." By signing a law to outlaw the slave trade? First off it said as a politician he did not oppose it, as with legislation or otherwise. Your reading of the text is flawed. If you can't make the simple distinction between the institution of slavery and the slave trade, then I suggest you study the matter. Jefferson in no way made any law against slavery as President - historical fact. Your claim is not supported by the sources, and that violates V policy. If you want to make a change to that section, please discuss it first here: [5] Ebanony (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Have moved this thread to the Thomas Jefferson discussion page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Grover Cleveland-22c.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Grover Cleveland-22c.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Appomattox Centenial 1965 issue--5c.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Appomattox Centenial 1965 issue--5c.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 January 22
Canvassing
I suggest you read this guideline on canvassing and see why what you did here is different from what I did here.
- Yes, I see the difference. You flattered and complimented Drk' and then asked him to drop by, whereas I simply related a short account of the discussion and asked Collect to drop in also, as he was part of the discussion originally and came to the discussion on his own accord originally. You said you were tired of the arguments but you keep dragging these fuzzy topics to the table and creating new ones. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Archiving at talk:Thomas Jefferson
Hi Gwillhickers! I saw that you are manually archiving some parts of the talk page. However, the page is archived by User:MiszaBot IMiszaBot. If it gets to long, I suggest simply reducing the 90 day age for archiving. Mixing manual and automatically generated archives is not impossible, but tricky - it's probably best to attach the manually archived material to the youngest existing archive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, we have to do something. The discussion page was a mile long, making it more difficult to follow more than one discussion when editing. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to ask you once: You archived some of the discussions I had here [6]; you did not do so properly, and chopped off text in mid stream, which is confusing, and distorts meaning. Please make an immediate correction to any and all text of mine you moved by restoring it to the talk page. The talk page has guidelines, I've warned you about them before. You don't have my permission to do that, and there is a 90-day bot for a reason. WP:TPO.Ebanony (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
See my note on the talk page [7], and:
- 2nd your remarks look like "1. Direct rudeness": "filling the talk page up with nonresponsive redundancy, habitual evasiveness and meaningless generic overlinking at the rate you have been dumping it". Policy on this:
- (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")
You've made comments like this several times, which I've ignored "evade the issue in your usual 2-dimensional, myopic fashion" [8]; this is an outright accusation of lying "Please make more of an attempt to be truthful with your claims." [9] Now it's getting out of hand. Please "Strike it out (using HTML strikeout tags)"; "you are little more than a die hard aggressor which seems to be consistent with the fact that your only interest in Jefferson is trying to associate him with Hemings." [10]; "This is another one of your distortions" [11]; you make claims that are patently false about numerous editors "Why do some individuals hope/insist it was TJ?" [12] (neither I nor others claim he did it); a clear case of lack of assuming WP:GF "This is absurd, out of place and again gives undue weight to a THEORY, no matter how many people want to believe it, or hype it out of proportion for their own sordid reasons, it is still just that, a theory with a lot of other variables to consider, or sweep under the rug, as your case may be. [13]; "I suppose you can throw that one on the pile of other unproven theories and speculations that have frothed from the mouths of pot-head college prof's and their mentors since the 60's. (That occurred in the 20th century also, btw.); "-- Also, if sources like Finkelman are as you claim and are in goose-step with your (very) narrow vision of Jefferson" [14] (I warned you about this [15]); "but unless you can use them to back up these claims you are no different than a jackass with a load of books on its back." [16]; more accusations of bias "Still, even with birth-dates you or any of these sources have fallen way short of that 'goalpost' in the attempt to pin this on Jefferson" [17].
This: "Agree Ebanony is clearly obsessed with this issue, has exposed himself to be completely without NPOV and in my opinion acts out of malice given this grossly disproportionate inclusion of Hemmings material." [18]
Your comments are uncivil and should be removed or withdrawn. Please remove them.Ebanony (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. In my opinion some, certainly not all, of the references were appropriately frank and were based on experience with this sort of gaming If this matter has proven to be that upsetting for you please feel free to do what you like with the discussion page, that is if the others don't mind you plucking out individual statements for your own personal reasons, and if you like, by all means bring it to the attention of whomever you may think is best suited to look into this matter further. Then perhaps we can have some real dialog as to what should be done with the Jefferson/discussion pages regarding the undue weight that has been given the Hemings controversy. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Overlinking
I wonder if you believe Wikipedia readers are complete morons because you restored the overlinking per this edit and in your reasoning you appear to love to pick out the phraseology that fits your way of thinking instead of concurring with the general view. These links are unnecessary. ww2censor (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the discussion page where I have clearly delineated the reasons and then kindly cite the good reason(s) for removal. -- 'Unnecessary' can be used to describe most of the links and images in the articles. Is that it? Links in lead or beginning section are often linked again in 'See also' where the reader hasn't got to go back into the body of the text to look for it, that is, if they remember that one specific link in among the many dozens of others.Two identical links, 'a mile apart', is not overlinking and it has nothing to do with 'reader intelligence'. As for "picking out phraseology", is this what you call referring to specific policy? I'll have to remember that one. Once again, the only way most of the philatelic articles will ever get read is via a link. Simple math W2'. -Don't quite understand why this is an issue for you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I already read the talk page and your commentary. I disagree with you because WP:LINK is not policy but guidelines and WP:REPEATLINK gives examples of what may be considered a reason for additional links; where the later occurrence is a long way from the first I read that as being for links in the prose which is distinctly different from the "see also" usage that has it own guidelines per WP:SEEALSO which states that links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated, so to me the guidelines are clearly contrary to your interpretation. Simply overlinking to me. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, now it seems you are saying that guidleines run contrary to policy here. Also WP:SEEALSO indeed says "generally not repeated", which more than suggests that there are exceptions, good reasons, to repeat the link and make it more readily available for the readers. In any event, I just noticed you have not deleted the links in 'See also', all along I assumed that you had. We seem to have locked horns on another discressionary issue. My thinking is that some links need, or deserve, to be repeated, esp the 'Postage stamp' link in the lede, which in my opinion will get skipped right over by most if not all readers. At any rate, if consensus says remove the links, then go ahead, if you think it will do more harm than good by leaving them in place. Just trying to bring more readers into the other philatelic pages. Gwillhickers (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- I already read the talk page and your commentary. I disagree with you because WP:LINK is not policy but guidelines and WP:REPEATLINK gives examples of what may be considered a reason for additional links; where the later occurrence is a long way from the first I read that as being for links in the prose which is distinctly different from the "see also" usage that has it own guidelines per WP:SEEALSO which states that links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated, so to me the guidelines are clearly contrary to your interpretation. Simply overlinking to me. ww2censor (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Pillars
Moved discussion to Jefferson talk page.
Schultz
I'm not Schultz (although I may sadly approach his waistline), and I'd really prefer it if you don't make really really mistaken statements about the sources I provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- What "mistaken statement" was that, for some reason you forgot to mention that, also. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- The claim that the birth dates of Hemings children are not at this link. Also see my extended comment added here to the main discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- What "mistaken statement" was that, for some reason you forgot to mention that, also. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)