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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I nominated it for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

On May 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I first included the stamp image back in April of 2010 and it was removed, twice. I tend not to make log entries when I am restoring illegal deletions and making general fixes in image size, text formatting, etc. Thanks for looking out just the same.
Btw.. It's good to see the Lincoln page shaping up. I am in the process of repairing and rewriting most of the Thomas Jefferson page as it will also be the second major fix the page has gone through. Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input on the article (my brother God bless him was a philatelist) and particularly your comment about the Legacy section needing some work. I gave it some work today. I'm sure it needs more but I do think we have improved it, thanks to your note. I think the best thing about an FAN for AL is the improvement that USUALLY comes about from it. That said, AL does such a great job bringing out the hunger in us history buffs that he's not suitable for the FA in a way – whenever he gets it he won't stay there long – and that's fine. Thanks again. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

=

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

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

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

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

On 3 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USS Ferret (1822), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the USS Ferret was part of a naval fleet that sailed to the Caribbean to subdue the occurrence of pirate raids on merchant ships that had increased to almost 3,000 by the early 1820s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Ferret (1822). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

On 12 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louis N. Stodder, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Louis Stodder was the USS Monitor's turret officer and the first person injured at the Battle of Hampton Roads, surviving a direct hit to Monitor's gun turret? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis N. Stodder. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

On 30 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles R. Chickering (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Charles R. Chickering designed some 77 postage stamps for the U.S. Post Office while working at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington, D.C.? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles R. Chickering (artist). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

((subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box))

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

• Congrats, and thanks for everything you do here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philately

Gwillhickers

Editor of the Week for the week beginning October 20, 2013

A prolific editor with wide-ranging interests and article involvement to the benefit of our reader.

Recognized for

"Humbly, We go forth"

Notable works

Blockade runners of the American Civil War, Bibliography of early American naval history, Bibliography of 18th-19th century Royal Naval history and List of ships captured in the 19th century

Submit a nomination

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

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

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Happy Barnstar day!! Audiluver (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On 25 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 20-cent U.S. Parcel Post stamp of 1912 had the distinction of being the first stamp in history to depict an airplane, six years before the U.S. Post Office issued an airmail stamp? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

	The Original Barnstar
	Loved this philatelic article - U.S. Parcel Post stamps of 1912-13! Extremely well written. AshLin (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Looks like you paid the iron price! #gameofthrones ;) AshLin (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class
		Well, you actually done what I thought was impossible: despite my nay-saying, you succesfully pushed Tadeusz Kościuszko to a FA-level. Thefefore, it is my pleasure to award you The Polish Barnstar of National Merit, 1st Class on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland. Hurra! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Gwillhickers by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here on 04:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, Thanks!! This will be a 'memorial day' weekend I won't forget. Kosciuszko is still with us! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think are the odds we could to this with Casimir Pulaski too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:. That's an idea, but I'm hoping that someone will initiate the USS Monitor review. If that happens my 'review' efforts will be more or less committed there. Let's see what happens. In the mean time, if you want to start tweaking the Pulaski article in the FA direction I'll see what I can do in between the acts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Bencherlite and Piotrus: -- Bencherlite, thanks for the notification. I thought articles that were promoted to FA were automatically featured on the front page sooner or later. In any case, I filled out the request, and listed it under Nonspecific date nominations, but I have a feeling I'm not doing something right as it looks a little odd. Am I also supposed to add the first portion of the lede? I added the first paragraph from the lede and removed the footnote, as it was leaving red warning tags on the page. Any help you can offer would be much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's "automatic" in a very pot-luck sense - some articles get picked within a few weeks of promotion, but others are still waiting to appear from 2006/2007 (and a few have waited even longer than that!) I'll tweak the template and draft a blurb for you - thanks for having a go! Bencherlite^Talk 19:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

That's an interesting question. I don't know if any other U.S. stamps were ever issued to promote a private enterprise, and I've read nothing to that effect either way. I certainly will keep an out out for that bit of information. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

First, I apologize for misspelling your screen name. I should have rechecked that against your post.

Further, regarding the historical political environment in which these stamps were issued, the United States government was deeply affected by the isolationist mood of the populace in the early 1930s. That feeling didn't abate until after Germany initiated WWII. Maybe there was Congressional debate about issuing these stamps, since they benefitted a foreign company (even though we weren't at war with Germany then). I'd offer to help look this up, but I'm rather absorbed in other things now, so it could be quite a while before I can look into the question. Bruin2 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still looking for other sources and hopefully something will break that sheds some light on these advents. I would love to be able to say (if true of course) that the Zeppelins were the only U.S. Postage stamps used to support a private enterprise, but without a reliable source as you must know we can't say anything, one way or the other, to this effect. I'll keep a look out for this info. That would be a key piece of information for the article indeed if we could only provide a source for it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Tadeusz Kościuszko Day" - indeed :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 889th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 889 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the German Zeppelin Airship Works received most of the revenue from the sale of the 1930 Graf Zeppelin postage stamps (pictured), issued by the U.S. as a gesture of good will towards Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1930 Graf Zeppelin stamps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

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

@Wehwalt:  Done -- I went ahead and added all three images as each stamp commemorates a different theme and point in time in Lafayette's history. A similar section was well received in the George Washington article just before it became a GA. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the sheer quantity of Lafayette prints, paintings, and sculptures available, they may not all survive. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Godot13: -- Your images are the pleasant surprise to me. As a stamp collector I have a great appreciation for engravings, and the (lost?) art of engraving. Btw, when I cropped the Jefferson image and over wrote your original image file I wasn't aware it was part of a set. Sorry about that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I read through your user page article on history through stamps (very thorough) and saw a great many parallels between our interests, not to mention many of the same designs but in miniature.-- Godot13 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Godot13: -- Here are a few images of various tax stamps and such you might find interesting. They are not 'ultra-high' res, but still have good resolution and are great images, imo.
File:Beer revenue stamp proof single 1871.JPG
File:Lincoln Beer Stamp 1871.JPG
File:United States 1919 $5.00 War Savings Issue-.jpg
File:Washington $5,000 Documentary trial color essay.JPG
File:Newspaper Periodical stamp $60 1894 issue.JPG
Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Godot13: -- Looks nice. I noticed there is a COA (listing, no image) for Washington in the list. Is there a COA for Thomas Jefferson? If so, would it work well in this list? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the CoA depicting Washington was the coa for the state of Washington, the list is only for state and territorial coas. If I come across anything regarding Jefferson, you know I'll let you know...--Godot13 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Godot13: Scheech! -- Sorry about my dumb question. But yes, if you find one for Jefferson, bring it forward. You may even want to find a place for it in the Jefferson article. Suggestion: You might want to start incorporating these COA's in their respective state articles. Aye? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Each coa image in the list article is placed in their respective state/territory seal or coat of arms article (all except Ohio which got booted out and I wasn't up for an edit war). They are all currently nominated as a set at Featured pictures... Prepping the Presidents for October.--Godot13 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

On 20 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Revenue stamps of the United States, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first U.S. revenue stamps (example pictured) were issued in 1862 to raise money for the American Civil War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revenue stamps of the United States. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

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

@Godot13: -- Thanks. I beginning to find out I may have bitten off more than I can chew in terms of providing illustrations for the many 100s of different 'types', let alone individual stamps. In the First issue design types section, under Bank check, I've already linked to an image of this check. However, if you would like to add your image to other versions in the summary for this image that would be nice also. I've linked to other examples of revenue stamps on documents, stocks, etc, in the article also. Fascinating stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Godot13: After thoughts. Just so you know, I realize the image of the check you've offered here is far superior in image quality, but the check I've linked to serves as a better philatelic and historical reference, at least imo, as it's franked with three stamps issued from the first three separate series of revenue stamps, issued in 1862, 1871 and 1872 respectively. Such a combination of rev stamps on any document is scarce, if not rare, and on that note makes for a unique image. -- Re: Featured pictures. Looks like I'm off to a rough start. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It's a better example for the signer versus the stamp... Having one's own photos in FP can be tough in the beginning...--Godot13 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Simpson (writer), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Stephen Simpson, a journalist writing under the pseudonym Brutus in the 1820s, criticized the First National Bank as primarily serving foreign interests? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Simpson (writer). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	Super Mediation Particpant Award
	Thank you for your dedication, patience and flexibility at mediation. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwillhickers, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Alex Shih^Talk 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent article on Seth Ledyard Phelps. I am writing to draw your attention to one small point. I believe Phelps and Servin were mistaken in reporting Eliza Phelps' maiden name as "Maynoden." I believe her true maiden name is "Maynadier." "Maynadier" is the name inscribed on her tombstone in the Oak Hill Cemetery, Washington, DC. It is also the name shown in her death notice in the Washington Post, May 28, 1897, p. 3, and in the 1850 census, as well. I very much appreciate your consideration. Best, John Paul Woodley, Jr.2600:8806:1200:B07:305D:AB3B:1705:C597 (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I found the name in The Phelps family of America and their English ancestors, volume 2. written by Oliver Seymour Phelps in 1889, page 1076. However, I will look into the sources you have provided and then go from there. If anything we can mention that accounts vary, and provide both spellings. -- John, aka Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gwillhickers. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I just browsed your user page and am very impressed by your contributions. Carmelsuttor (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the resident philatelist, could you please look at the above article if you have time and inclination? The article we had wasn't much, hopefully it will go to FAC in due course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply] Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-your article about Thomas Perkins Abernethy was interesting. Thank you for writing and researching this. I did added categories about his military service and birth place. However, you removed these categories. You also removed a link to his birth place Collirene, Alabama. I started the article in order to help readers to locate the community in the article. I assumed good faith when I added the link to Thomas Perkin Abernethy's birth place and the categories. I am not sure why you reoved the link or the categories which were added in good faith. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RFD: That's strange, I don't recall removing these things, and what's even stranger, I can't think of any reason why I would. The edit history for the edit in question has a {Tag: PHP7}. When you go to the Tag article that defines this item, it speaks of "Revisions made with PHP7 enabled instead of HHVM (expected to improve performance, tagged for debugging/analysis)". I'm not sure what these "revisions" involve. When I make reverts as a rule I note the reason(s) why in edit history. In any case, I am glad to have the links and the added categories. Thanks for restoring them -- and thanks for creating the new article. Btw, the ' Abernethy article (hook) is up for DYK nomination. Someone said the hook wasn't interesting. Would appreciate any feedback you may have to offer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers:-Many thanks for your comments and assistance. Sometimes I wonder about the technology used in Wikipedia. Last year I got blocked because of problems with open proxy issues. I think other editors had the same issues. Again many thanks-RFD (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the 400,000,000th edit to the English Wikipedia (9 years ago, currently we're at 9,000,000) Jerry (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] valereee (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] valereee (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] valereee (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] valereee (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gwillhickers! I happened on your Convict Lake article and enjoyed reading it. I hope this will not offend you, but I did notice one inconsistency that I think you would like to know about the story. That is the story of a Pony Express rider by the name of Billy Poor being a victim of the convicts in September 1871. I did not know the history of Convict Lake at all, but I do know about the Pony Express. The first ride of the Pony Express began on April 3, 1860, and the entire Pony Express service ended just 18 months later on October 24, 1861, with the completion of the transcontinental telegraph line. When it was running, the Pony Express route ran just south of Lake Tahoe. So, the inconsistency is that Billy Poor simply could not have been a rider for the Pony Express at Convict Lake in 1871, because the Pony Express actually ran more than 100 miles north of there and had ended almost 10 years before the date of the incident with the convicts. I also checked the National Geographic site that is referenced at that point in the article and did not see any mention of the Billy Poor story there (though it's possible the page has changed since you saw it and referenced it). As I said, I do not know the history of Convict Lake or that area specifically, and I suppose it is possible that Billy Poor was riding to deliver mail to someone or something like that, but he could not have been an actual Pony Express Rider. Again, I hope you understand that my intention is to be helpful, and I do appreciate that you took the time to write the article. Thank you! PrayTwice 03:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sing2pray (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your interest. Poor's involvement is what the sources have indicated. There has to be an explanation, perhaps even an exception involved. If you have sources that can support any revision you think the article will benefit from, your contributions would be welcomed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwillhickers: I appreciate your reply! Please note that I do not in any way dispute that Billy Poor was involved; it's just not possible that he was a Pony Express Rider, although he may well have been riding to deliver mail. To that point, I located a source that supports the story of the murder of Billy Poor by convicts at what is now known as Convict Lake, and that source also identifies him simply as "a mail rider"--someone riding to deliver the mail (as I suggested might be the case), which is not the same as an actual Pony Express Rider primarily because (as previously noted) the Pony Express had ended nearly 10 years prior to the incident at the lake. The source is "The Story of Convict Lake" as published online in the Desert Gazette Blog. That page acknowledges the text is from The Story of Inyo, by W. A. Chalfant (1922). The story is told in Chapter XX of Chalfant's book, and that section is presented verbatim on the Desert Gazette Blog page referenced above. The 1922 book is available in a Kindle edition, if you'd like to look it up there to cite the original source. I hope that is helpful! --PrayTwice 01:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sing2pray: Thank you so very much for your research. I am very involved in other areas presently, doing lots of reading, research and writing, so now is not the time for me to switch tracks and commit to another article. However, you've listed some great sources, and have discovered a serious error. I encourage you to make whatever changes you deem necessary, and have my blessing. (Love your user name.) I made one change. All the best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]  — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Great Siege of Gibraltar, I've made a few contributions. The first is to refer to the conflict under discussion there by the European RS term, "War of the American Revolution", which is HISTORIOGRAPHICALLY meant to encompass BOTH the American Revolution among British subjects AND the concurrent "European war of 1778-83" (Simms 2007, p. 681) among the western Great Powers, worldwide.

Lots more to share - the term "War of the American Revolution" search is redirected to American Revolutionary War, something we may want to address by creating the "SISTER ARTICLE" recommended by Lord Cornwallis: War of the American Revolution, with appropriate linking to American Revolutionary War, France in the American Revolution, Spain in the American Revolution, and in another category of related articles, Second Hundred Years' War, Anglo-French War (1778) and Anglo-Spanish War (1779).

You may be aware of the Eastfarthingan and XavierGreen proposal to merge Anglo-French War (1778) with "France in the American Revolution" as has been done previously with the Anglo-Spanish War (1779) into "Spain in the American Revolution", with a redirection link for the Spanish war term search. QUERY: How do those merges impact the Wikipedia organization (consistency) of the Military History Project articles, Anglo-French Wars, Anglo-Spanish Wars, and Second Hundred Years' War?

Second, I read into Davenport & Paullin European Treaties Bearing On the History of the United States and Its Dependencies (1917, 2015) Both snippets at Amazon and at Google Books are extensive, allowing considerable online investigation.

CONTRIBUTIONS (Italics mine):

The Great Siege of Gibraltar was an unsuccessful attempt by Spain and France to capture Gibraltar from the British during the War of the American Revolution.[Eggenberger p. 172]

Spain declared war on Britain in 1779 the year after France based on its Third Pacte de Famille between the Bourbon kings. The supplemental Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) was made to recover Bourbon territories lost at the Treaty of Paris (1783) and the military glory lost to Britain in the Seven Years' War. When Spain joined France as an ally against Britain, it became a formal co-belligerent with the United States Congress in its war against Britain.[Davenport, p. 168]

However the first war aim for Spain at Aranjuez was to recover the Fortress at Gibraltar which had been lost to the British at the 1715 Peace of Utrecht. Gibraltar commanded the North Atlantic entrance to the Mediterranean Sea, and at the Spanish declaration of war against Britain on June 16 1779, the British base at Gibraltar was vulnerable.[Eggenberger, p. 172]

- Following the response(s) may be of interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheVirginiaHistorian: I've already added my "Oppose" statement to the Talk page: Merge proposal section. Hope to see you there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to match your ref formatting, but every time I clicked 'show preview' it was a disaster. My apologies. APK whisper in my ear 05:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to clutter the ARW talk page, but would like to address your comments at 01:11, 25 September 2020 that the term foreign mercenary was exclusively used throughout history. In fact, the source you provided [H.D. Schmitt] does not say that. He says for example that "the young Schiller immortalized the traffic in German mercenaries to America in his drama Kabale and Liebe." You take that as evidence that Schiller referred to the men as mercenaries. In fact he did not use the term in his drama. In no case did Schmidt claim that any British or European writer used the term. The description appears to have begun with the revolutionaries in the Continental Congress. TFD (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the idea of mercenaries was used in propaganda and elsewhere, and rightly so, but that by itself doesn't discount the idea that the soldiers in question were hired to fight in a foreign war.  I never made any claims in regards to what Schiller thought. Aside from Schmidt's reference to Schiller, he still uses the term foreign or German mercenaries throughout his work. e.g.On p. 209 Schmidt says, "the king issued an order forbidding the transit through Prussian territory of all mercenaries hired for the American War." On p. 207 he says, "The employment of German mercenaries figured for political debate, not only in Britain but in Germany".
You should know that the employment of mercenaries dates back to the Roman empire, and that they came in many forms, but what has always distinguished them as mercenaries is that they were hired soldiers sent off to fight in someone else's war. Currently the Hessian section makes plain the idea that the Hessians were obtained via a treaty of subsidy, which is a welcomed point of context. However, it's not right that anyone should try to diminish the distinction that they were hired soldiers employed to fight in a foreign war. That is the major consideration. To think that the term mercenary is some invention made by the Americans is a bit absurd.
I am aware of the treaties of subsidies made between Britain and the German princes, and that the soldiers in question were not paid anything more than that of regular soldiers, but as said before, they were indeed professional soldiers, hired to fight in a foreign war they had no interest in, which is why they are widely considered by scholars as mercenaries. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October

Today's DYK is a song, Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), a call to see and praise wonders daily and let nobody deny that, written in World War II, - a good recipe for peace, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of Hindemith's Kammermusik. Now, it's long enough, and I added the image to the article. esterday I was just too tired. Perhaps say something about the image in the review? I began infoboxes, but am too tired again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, what's this?

Reynolds was born at Strangways, Wiltshire and baptized June 25, 1739, at Manchester Cathedral.

and

After becoming a Midshipman Reynolds was appointed Lord Ducie on March 28, 1739;

So he became a navy man 3 months before he was born? Seems likely bragging to me... Shenme (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Year date and citation have been fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,128 views (427.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been such an ordeal getting this DYK nomination done. I went ahead and re-reviewed your nom since the AfD was closed as "Keep". The only thing it needs now is for you to add the sources for the hook to the nom. Once that's done, I'll approve it so we can (finally) wrap this one up. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenal writing and research, wonderful work. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ritchie333 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

6 January

in friendship

Thank you for these! - Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

February songs

frozen

thank you for a good one! - my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a pic in 2009 that was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply] — Maile (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to remove the RfC tag — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I see you sent an email to me on my notice board. not sure how to access it. - Got a new computer, still trying to figure it out. - Spent most recent time working on spring yard, learning about local City. - Some limited reading into Harold Holzer, "Lincoln and the Power of the Press". - Got enrolled into VA healthcare, which is an improvement over Sentara for preventative healthcare with diabetes prior to hospitalization, among other things going on.

I suspended my activity here for a while due to three elements of Wikipedia, although I will undoubtably spend a great deal of daily time here again beginning in 2023.

I suppose that once Wikipedia allows the substance of an article to be rewritten into unrecognizable nonsense for the online viewer, I have spent two or more weeks trying to restore the article using Foundation tools available to me, the coherent piece is free for my webpage publication. - So at a profound level, I am happy to freely contribute to the "free encyclopedia" ideal that I firmly believe in still, but then when the community purges it, after the Foundation's remediation steps fail, the intelligible portion of historical narrative expunged is mine to use as I choose. If not, I'll just have to rewrite 10% as required by law for material that already has been substantively altered 40% and more.

Concerning four Wikipedia I spent several months on each over the years,

1. The WWII Naval "Bombardment of Cherbourg" was denied Good Article status in the Military interest group, and has since been made an unreliable fragment account of the naval operation. -- The only rationale posted for dismissing the merits of the article was that it did not spend enough space chronicling infantry maneuver of the Medal of Honor winners, and their significance to naval warfare described.

The infantry casualties as a percent of those engaged in ground combat were larger than that suffered during Civil War battles such as Antietam and Cold Harbor. But without an efficient world class port operation, there could have been no build up and break out, so Cherbourg was literally the point of the Normandy invasion . . . worth any price to succeed. -- The Destroyer section as written and illustrated was all but eliminated. In the event, as explained in some detail in the article, now deleted, and on the Talk page in defense of the article without effect in the Wikipedia community,

(a) the battleship and cruiser guns broke the German's big coastal guns off their turrets, so they could not swivel to fire into the oncoming infantry winning Congressional Medals; 
(b) the destroyer naval gunners communicated via Army air observation to Army ground artillery spotters and destroyed the interlocking pillboxes that Army artillery could not disable that were inflicting the oncoming infantry casualties according to official Army documentation, including those of posthumous Medal of Honor winners, as noted in the article.

2. The History of the Supreme Court showing the legal evolution of American jurisprudence, along with images of four justices in each Court to explicate divisions of legal reasoning in each "Court Era", is entirely purged, to be replaced with a poorly summarized account of Supreme Court structure apparently lifted directly out of chapter headings in a first year law textbook.

3. At the Siege of Fort Pulaski, the account of the Union's amphibious landings and innovative deployment of explosive shell naval gunnery now has garbled and incoherent text, along with footnotes that no longer align with the text.

4. At the American Revolutionary War, after spending over six months curating a solid bibliography for American Revolutionary War, purging personal and business websites in the links, etc., the work was universally garbled by a bot malware. -- Administrators dismissed my concern, saying 1) no one would do that, and 2) if they were to do so, it could be easily reversed with one click, therefore I had no reasonable concern for the chance of the article to gain Good Article rating.

-- I had converted the entire article into open coded footnotes so the reader of a section or a paragraph could immediately acquire the author and title of each source by hovering the mouse over the footnote. -- The malware bot converted names of citations to undecipherable series of letters and numbers, often imposing more keystrokes into the article coding than what it replaced for references with under three citations to the same book. -- Appeals for the bot-maker to reverse the disruption to the page went unanswered. -- After two edits following the disruption, it is not apparent to me how there may be a one-click reversal of the hundreds of footnotes mangled into incomprehensibility.

... But thank you for the personal interest. I hope all is well with you and yours as well ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to wish you a belated successful June 6 Normandy D-Day celebration, but the dementia progresses, however slowly.

- #3. continued, the Lost Cause narrative insists that Pulaski was lost only by perfidious treason by (a) the Confederate Naval Admiral Tindall who turned back Union iron clads from the mouth of the Savannah River threatening to deploy upriver to bombard the Fort, using only the bow-chaser sloops at his disposal, and (b) the Fort's commander, who surrendered only after the Fort's brick wall [now obsolete in the world's military history with the introduction of explosive artillery shells] was holed, and a round skipped across the parade ground, just adjacent to the Fort's magazine and exploded. Previously his well trained gunners had played on the Union emplacements on Tybee Island a mile away so accurately that Union forces could deploy only at night.

But the Lost Cause and the modern Neo-Confederates (see their social media) like promoting the anachronistic 'Red Stained Banner' on multiple Confederacy 1861-1865 pages, a design 'resolved' not 'enacted' by a rump Confederate Congress with fewer than 50%, the rest having fled from Richmond. A flag described by the official Confederate Army association historian, a former Confederate General, in 1866 as one "that I have never seen, and I never met any [Confederate soldier] who ever saw it [before Lee's Surrender]".

The documentation is often quoted and cited to the Journal of Mississippi History(?) over my 5-year campaign of Talk page Wiki-wars. Over that period of time, the Wikipedia Military interest group did not entertain any procedure to standardize the Confederate 'stars and bars to each flag *duly* adopted in the Confederate Congress (there were 2-3 without the fly red vertical stripe) -- following the Wikipedia military editor's consensus used in the American Revolutionary War related articles and Infoboxes. Sometimes the Request for Comment, and other Foundation formal procedures were posted unanswered and they just aged out without any reply in [30] days.

Sometimes the request for a formal review of the proposal to replace the 'Blood Stained Banner' with an historically accurate flag of each time was simply deleted. Elsewhere in public forums, Neo-Confederates speciously argue that the Great Rebellion, unrecognized as a 'nation' at the time by any nation but Brazil, or in a tortured argument, the Vatican -- must now in the 21st century, be given a moral equivalence to the United States as a nation at that time, and now as the modern Neo-Confederates on their social media and on Wikipedia pages do maintain that the Confederacy is alive today, holding elections, with dual citizenship for their dues paying membership with the United States, as enacted by their contemporary Confederate fiat.

That, when historically at the time, concerning editorial policy for a history article on Wikipedia, the US was universally internationally recognized even by nations or their nationals giving the Confederacy substantial military aid throughout the Rebellion; "The Confederate States of America" was not so recognized. The Lost Cause and modern day Neo-Confederate assertion cannot be sustained in reasonable discussion, so there has been none on Wikipedia.

In any case, I intend to turn to the webpage full time by January next year. The article we worked on together, American Revolutionary War, looks pretty sound, even with 'British' English spelling introduced. Only a few qualifiers in the existing narrative occur to me, so as to * substance * in that case, it really does seem Wikipedia can do without any further contribution on my part.

But let me know if there is another scholar bio you want to take on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Nice to have you back, at least here. Haven't checked in to the A.R.W. article lately. Currently I've been devoting my time to the Early American publishers and printers article. Also, we are involved in an RfC on the Founding Fathers of the United States, as there was some debate as to whom we should refer to as a Founding Father The current RfC involves whether the Articles of Confederation is considered a founding document. If you have the time and the inclination you may want to chime in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your close of the AoCRfC should probably contain the result of the question, that yes, signers of the AoC are recognized as ff on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: — Yes, I suppose it should be worded a bit more inclusively.  Done -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't seen it, a great article on Samuel Adams in this month's Smithsonian magazine (the cover story with a good rendition of Adams on the cover). It gives Adams the Founding credit he deserves. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply] Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on expanding John Cooper (New Jersey politician) (and nominated for DYK)...and it feels like David Cooper (abolitionist) could use another look in light of that. I understand that David had a bigger impact in the end, but maybe it's only fair to address how uncomfortable David was with the American Revolution given his Quaker beliefs. Anyway I'm a fan of your work and was excited to stumble on such an interesting story. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: — It looks like user:Onegreatjoke beat me to the punch. Nice article. IMO, ALT1 seems the most interesting. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just need a different hook, as the "importance" claim is continuing to raise flags with other editors. Would you be willing to propose another one? Cielquiparle (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: — I'm not seeing where the hook has made any issue with other editors. In any case, we can always say ... was considered to have played an important role, which is what ALT0a says in effect. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the above. Discussion has been addressed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwillhickers. After the whole Clymer thing, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in a post-mortem discussion of close paraphrasing. It's clear you and I have different views about what is permissible. Maybe talking it out will change one or both of our minds? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: — Thanks for taking an interest in my opinion. Didn't expect to hear from you again. I think we can agree that there is something of an opinionated 'grey-area' as to what constitutes CLOP. In the real world any case involving CLOP and plagiarism has to involve more than a few phrases with the same wording, and that an appreciable amount of text has to have been outright copied for any such case to stand. Again, no one can copyright general facts and ideas, even if they are presented in the same order as a copyrighted source Sometimes it's necessary to employ the same chronology for an article to have a good narrative flow. We can't say, Clymer was skilled at fixing farm equipment and then he was born on his father's farm. Neither can we say he developed a special pump, and then later say he moved to Philadelphia and took an interest in bridge construction. These facts have to be presented in the proper order, and for that, and for using a few similar phrases involving general facts that involved no special wording or interpretation I have evoked CLOP issues.

I have been trying to cooperate, but it seems whatever rewording I employed, I was still facing CLOP issues. At wits end, I simply opted to have the nomination withdrawn. Having said that, I am certainly not above adapting other approaches and am open to suggestions as to the Clymer article, and in general. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey G. I appreciate your thoughtful response. I figured I'd give WP:CLOP a full re-read and have been yanked along link-chains more than I thought I'd be. Hope to have a substantive response for you in the next couple days. Incidentally, did you see I linked some sources at Talk:George E. Clymer#Early life sources? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: — All I can hope for is that any such article tagged for CLOP be considered in light of the various distinctions about what is and isn't CLOP and plagiarism. The tag on the George E. Clymer article says "close paraphrasing of one or more non-free copyrighted sources". I believe there are no items in that article that are protected by copyright, whether presented as stand alone facts or general ideas, or those presented in the same narrative order as a given source has. Any similarity in prose only concerns general short phrases of fact and simple ideas. Once again, any ideas or improvements you can offer would and has been greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwillhickers. I haven't checked in on the Clymer article since the DYK close, so I couldn't comment on its present state. Certainly at the moment of nomination, it had what I consider to be extensive close paraphrasing issues.

Just looking at the Dictionary of American Biography source, the article had about three paragraphs of material closely paraphrased from the source. I conceded that none of the source's language was particularly creative, and that most of the content was straightforward facts. Little bits of analysis did get copied over, things like "in great favor for many years". Some old-timey sentence structure was preserved, like "became much involved in the construction of the first permanent bridge across the Schuylkill River" after the source's "became much interested in the erection of the first permanent bridge across the Schuylkill River".

For the most part, though, the issue is whether you can closely paraphrase three paragraphs of factual content from a source, presenting it with only small changes to wording, sentence structure, and order. There is substantial similarity between the article and source texts, and the compilation protection of the source author's rights are infringed.

It's arguable that much of the content is not expressible in other ways, but WP:LIMITED is clear that extensive use of this exception leads to copyright issues. A couple sentences are presumed to be permissible, but the Clymer article went way past that.

I do think that almost all of the content from the DAB source could be included in a CLOP-free article. The availability of other sources covering overlapping material helps a lot. Flashing back to bits of early life info when later relevant can help break up the sequence. Some chunks of content can be reworded. Some details might need to be cut.

Having reviewed CLOP, I can't reconcile the wording with an interpretation that would make the article permissible. When you read CLOP, do you think there are parts that are overly stringent or inaccurate? Would you be interested in proposing changes? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to effect policy changes or revisions is nearly impossible, unless there is an overwhelming consensus, and in this case, it would be coming from someone who has been dealing with clop issues and no doubt would be viewed as a self serving effort. Otoh, if you're of a mind to introduce some changes, I'd certainly would lend you support if of course the changes were acceptable. As for the DAB, this is a public domain source so there is no copyright concerns.The tag on the Clymer article is claiming close paraphrasing from copyrighted sources, and thus far, no one has pointed out any close paraphrasing from a copyrighted source. There has to be an appreciable amount of copying, esp involving unique wording and interpretations for a copyright case to stand, and though there are some similarities I'm still not seeing any out right copyright concerns. No one can reinvent the wheel.

I am still a little confused as how to present basic facts in the proper order without invoking clop issues.There is no denying that a few phrases are very similar, but again, they only involve general ideas. As you said, I made "small changes to wording, sentence structure, and order" but am still facing clop issues. If one wants to convey the same information in the same order, this is almost unavoidable without scattering the information into a dis-jointed narrative. Now you're suggesting that we should also delete some details. If you haven't reviewed the article since the DYK close, I would invite you to do so, and make or suggest any changes you feel are still necessary. Meanwhile I'll delve back into the article to see what else can be done here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to respond to the rest later, but why is DAB a PD source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DAB is public domain because it was last published more than 80 years ago, there is no indication of any renewed copyright and it is available for download in its entirety, otherwise the folks at archive.org would not have made it available. Unless someone can show that there is a copyright, there's no issue about any copyright issue. In any case, not enough text was copied, or closely paraphrased to invoke actual copyright issues, esp since nearly all the phrases in question involve general facts and ideas. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright was renewed in 1958. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Firefangledfeathers: — Well, okay. Good leg work. The original date of publication was in 1930. Still can't understand how a copyrighted work can just be given away by archive.org. Perhaps they got permission? Are you sure the renewed registration involves the copyright? In any case, PD or not, I make efforts not to copy paste and go too far with close paraphrasing, confining myself to general statements of fact and that sort of thing. I will continue to make efforts to satisfy everyone concerned. All I ask is to consider the points about what is allowable close paraphrasing. Again, any other suggestions you can offer, (aside from deleting details) would be greatly appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not 100% sure, but the page is called "Copyright Renewals" and the OpenLibrary metadata points toward the "Stanford Copyright Renewal Database".

  On your general points: I think you're right about the effort involved in policy change, and I respect your decision to stay out of it. I'm not sure there's a way I can advance my view on how much copying of general facts is permissible. I think maybe part of our disconnect is that I'm not just thinking through a legal lens. I think there are cases of copying where I'd say Wikipedia guideline/policy has been violated, but where I'd doubt that any legal case would be successful. Some of that is ideological, based on my sense of right and wrong, and more of it is pragmatic: we can't rely on volunteer editors to know their way around copyright law, so best to leave a healthy margin of error around the legal borders.

  For Clymer specifically, I bet I can wrangle something together for the Early life section specifically, and maybe the first paragraph of the following section. I've got a few other plates spinning, but I'm guessing I can get to it before the end of the month. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: — I like to think that we're not doing any "copying of general facts", but relating them, and because they are general facts, there can often be a close similarity in the prose. Yes, I welcome any help you can lend, hoping of course you'll keep the same facts and overall narrative in place, and ideally without creating a disjointed or staggered chronology. Easier said than done apparently. Let me say once again, I greatly appreciate your interest, effort and going the distance with me on this article. Meanwhile, I'll continue coming back to the article to see what improvements I can effect. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I do have a draft, I'll post it at talk for review. I also appreciate your willingness to talk this out. I had hoped maybe for more movement, but I don't regret the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your help and patience is greatly appreciated. Many thanks -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will be signing off until the evening, if you'd like to add notices to some of the editors, thanks. I was going to leave TheVirginiaHistorian a note but checked and he hasn't edited since October. I hope he's okay, have you been in touch? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: — Yes, TVH has been absent for some time. I got the impression that he was simply tired. Who knows? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. TheVirginiaHistorian (I should have pinged above), hoping all is well and you're resting up for the 250th anniversary edits. As an aside there was an editor from Italy who disappeared during the height of the pandemic in Italy and I feared the worse. I think it was two years later they left one edit and left again. It was great to see that edit appear. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: — I suspect when that 'good faith' individual tried to have us long time contributors of Revolutionary ariticles topic banned from all Revolution articles that it left TVH wondering how much this Doctorate of History was appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of that too, and at the time it happened it seemed as if he thought the banning was a possibility when obviously it was clearly a mistaken assumption and overreaction which was quickly handled. But hard to tell because editing regularly one day and not the next, without explanation, could have been a result of the ANI bit taking some of the fun out of editing. Talking of fun, did you read Allreet additions to Signers Monument (a hint, "button, button, who has the button?"). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: — Like they say, truth is stranger than fiction. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Founding Fathers of the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

I've gone ahead with the FAC re-nomination with Cmguy of the James Madison article, who was fourth in order of US Presidents in which you've shown some interest. It would be nice to see your support/oppose comments possibly if time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A short follow-up since things seem to be moving along. Suggestion not to add any more images since the article already has an Image review favorably posted. New images can be added as needed after the assessment.

@ErnestKrause:, I'm assuming that this is a general message to all, as I've never added any images to the article. In any case, I agree – enough images for now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a general announcement. Regarding your other question, then Hawkeye has raised some questions last night which might be of interest for your comment. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Please assume good faith. I am not gaslighting you, and your attack against me at Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was inappropriate. Your chronic disruption needs to stop [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].  — Freoh 21:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bibliography of the United States Constitution, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Please do not delete others' comments on talk pages. Maxxhiato and I disagree with you, and you disrupt the consensus-building process by removing their comments [6].  — Freoh 14:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]