Archives

1

Hi, just wanted to say nice work on Benedict Arnold (governor)! Also, just a heads-up, I moved all of the articles on your user page with "(Governor)" to "(governor)" as per WP:CAPS, hope you don't mind. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest I just skimmed it. :-) But it looks like good, well-sourced content. To make all the G's lowercase I just moved them. It should be one of the tabs at the top-right corner of the page. You might have to hover over the small down arrow to see it. As long as the original page isn't move protected or the new page doesn't have a history besides the creation of a redirect, you should be able to perform the move. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Sarnold17 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if anything came of your work or if you'd abandoned the project. I'd love to see what you've done if you stuck with it. avs5221^(t|c) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To sarnold/17 Your biographies are excellent. You would be fascinated by the story I have discovered about the Newport Tower and Benedict Arnold. Check out my new website newporttowermuseum.com or email me at jim@jimegan.com Shine on, Jim Egan ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimEgan252 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Benedict Arnold (governor) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Taking your own photos is definitely encouraged. I included some older photos when I didn't have a licensed modern one. If you could contribute your own that would really add a lot to the article. Thanks. Swampyank (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a bore, but including context (such as the frame) in a photograph means that it is copyrightable. As such, this file is free only if the image is cropped so that only the painting is visible (you could make a request at the graphic lab or if the photograph is PD (I don't know whether that particular site releases its content- you'll have to double check). J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up. I will re-crop the photo, and include it without the frame.Sarnold17 (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This is very well written. Congrats. 94.8.98.105 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am humbly thankful for the Barnstar! Even though I'm not sure for what it was given, thanks for the recognition!Sarnold17 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article James Draper (settler) has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Aaron Booth (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that Booth is using a bot; especially since he'd racked up less than 500 edits to date before this past month, a review of his user contributions list indicates that he's another newbie who's discovered NPP and has gone tag-happy. Quite aside from the referenced article of mine he tagged with a BLPPROD, I found five other glaring screwups with his edits of yesterday alone - the Draper article among them - quite aside from the two AfDs he filed which were hastily withdrawn. He's about one day away at this rate from me seeking admin intervention to sit on him some. Ravenswing 18:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks very much for your take on this. I guess mine was not an isolated case. I agree it's probably close to time for this guy to be re-directed in his efforts.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a new member of Wikipedia's registered user community.

Have a great day.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Middleton.Troy.Bust.LSU.20120401.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. Eeekster (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Eisenhower.Dwight.preWWII.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the name of first Chief Justice. I was having a hard time figuring out much information about him online a while back. I guess the misnaming would explain why, but there still doesn't seem to be a whole lot written about him. I was interested in learning a bit more about origins of the legal system in Rhode Island and whether it followed common law precedent, etc...Thanks again. Swampyank (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got the list of RI Supreme Court justices on a publication on the court's website at http://www.courts.ri.gov/Courts/SupremeCourt/PDF/AboutTheSupremeCourt.pdf#openinnewwindow

Nice work on all of the in-depth early Rhode Island articles. Swampyank (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't originally include Spencer's name in my data. It looks like someone added it in Revision at 20:33, 22 December 2009. Swampyank (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, thanks. I guess I'll have to revise the list and template. I don't think Spencer Fields exists.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as File:Dr.OliverArnold.ArnoldBuryingGround.20110722.jpg to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading! --Stefan2 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else says that expansion falls too short, so I guess I have no choice but to have this nomination rejected. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you did an excellent job in your peer review of Humphrey Marshall (politician) and was wondering if you would be interested in looking at Thomas S. Hinde. I have tried to greatly improve the article recently and it just received a comprehensive copy-edit. An addition to this request, I found two other wiki contributors from the Henry Clay and George Madison talk pages and asked them to look at the article. I have only been contributing for less than a year but I am eager to learn and would appreciate anytime you could spare to help improve this article. The goal is to reach GA or FA status.

Thank you in advance and I hope to hear from you soon.

Best Regards, Lawman4312 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know I was so impressed with this I picked it as a lead DYK. It is now in prep 1. I wish it had a photo that showed up better though. This is one of the best brand new articles I've seen in a long time. It should be easy to get this to GA if you want. It does have several ref link errors (which display if you have a script in your monobook). I can help fix that if you want. Let me know.PumpkinSky talk 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Portsmouth in this and Anne's article the one in New Hampshire or elsewhere? Ref page numbers are not consistent, some formats are 311-32 and some 311-332.PumpkinSky talk 12:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just wrote you on your talk page; now I see what you are talking about. Every mention of Portsmouth in this article and the Anne Hutchinson article is in reference to Portsmouth, Rhode Island. If I haven't linked that anywhere then it does need to be linked once or twice to let the reader know that that is the Portsmouth in question. As to the page number references, which is best, 311-32, or 311-332? I like the looks of the latter, but if there's a policy, I'm happy to comply. Please, feel free to fix any of the ref link errors, because I haven't a clue as to what a monobook script is.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Portsmouth question? I'll fix the page numbers too, in a few minutes I'll start. Pls answer Pmouth question.PumpkinSky talk 12:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our messages are crossing in ether space. I hope my previous response answers the Portsmouth question.Sarnold17 (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of all this. Us retied military have to stick together  ;-) As for page numbers, no policy, just be consistent if you want GA or FA. PumpkinSky talk 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And in what branch did you serve?Sarnold17 (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"311-332" is Wikipedia style. - Jmabel | Talk 15:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Navy, 20 years. PumpkinSky talk 13:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anchors Aweigh, mate. Living 20 miles from Annapolis, the Navy is an integral part of life around here, especially when there's a home game at the Academy. Thanks again for all your help; I'll be away from the internet for the next few days.Sarnold17 (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Things you need to do to get GA/FA--
  • REF 78 is a dead link, needs replacing
  • REF 80 needs page numbers
  • What has this got to do with Saints? She's not Catholic, though she's called "saintly". (saint portal)
  • Books by Ellis and Rothbard aren't used as refs, you may want to reference them.
  • REFS 90, 96, 97 need page numbers
    • That's about it. Once you fix this stuff I'd nom it for GA.PumpkinSky talk 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many many thanks for this; I'll also respond on your talk page.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just got done skimming the article .. FANTASTIC work!! I will stop back to read in detail when I have more time. Thanks for such an effort. — Ched :  ?  18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!Sarnold17 (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this got over 10,000 hits? Awesome!PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It far outdid my other DYK's. I immodestly posted the result on the DYK stats page for July, since it beat 5000. With your recommendation, and some tweaking, I've put the article up for GA. Thanks for your help and encouragement!Sarnold17 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you left messages on the talk pages of a couple of the members of the project and in one case you mentioned they were the only active one. I just went through and scrubbed the list and all of the folks on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island/Active participants have edited in the last 6 months. You may also want to contact the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rhode Island/Inactive participants and see if any are still watching their talk page and might wanna come back and participate. Cheers. Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Sarnold17 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, your concerns are kind of the same ones I used for keeping Nevada out. While there is some good, I'm not sure that I see that outweighing the bad. For a while I was working on cleaning up the links to dab pages within that project. Then I found out that it was helpless since no matter how much I was doing, I was always falling further behind. I think that is because they are focused on adding more rather then improving articles. As a comparison, I think that RI has none and Nevada has about one. For me, there is an issue with the small states having less interest in their projects. While that is a problem I'd like to see fixing, the current solutions are not the right way in my mind. But then, my positions are not always popular. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your input. Yes, it seems the small states have little representation, and thus not much project activity, but I also noticed that Texas fell under the WPUS umbrella. New York kept its independence. Why not Texas? Anyway, I'm suffering from a loss of identity right now, and feel like I've been swallowed by a behemoth. Did I read the chart correctly that there are zero disambiguation problems with articles that identify with Rhode Island? Now that should be a feather in our cap. Good to hear from you.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your concerns about the RI/US wikiprojects. It does seem strange to make it part of the US Project. I'm not really too familiar with the benefits of either, but if you think making RI part of the US project is a bad idea, I can oppose it too. Swampyank (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the photo of the Gideon Cornell House. Having a photo really improves the appearance of an article in my opinion. That's really useful to add the cemetery photos to articles as well. A 1670 Rhode Island house would be an interesting addition to the list because very few buildings in Rhode Island survived King Philip's War as you probably know. Maybe the owners will have dendrochronology done on the home to get a precise date. That's a shame about the 1685 colonial house...it would also have been one of the oldest houses in the state. Looking forward to seeing your next additions! Swampyank (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the Gideon Cornell House listed individually on the NRHP, but if there is a plaque it may be a contributing property within one of the NRHP historic districts. It may be significant enough on its own to create an article though. Swampyank (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix the name of the Northrup House article. It would be interesting to know more about the house if it is actually from the seventeenth century.Swampyank (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Hi Phd, and thanks for the edits on Antinomian Controversy and Samuel Cole (settler). Friendly, helpful edits are so greatly appreciated! I've been dismayed over recent turf battles, and just found your user page to be the right dose of medicine.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks back! (As a long-time minor functionary in many volunteer organizations, I realize the importance of showing the volunteers some appreciation now and then.) Glad to be of help, both with edits and the unknowing pep talk. I just had a gander at your user page and was struck by how much we have in common. Maybe that's why!--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on the encyclopedic need for the use of military dates on United States military related articles is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal to strike out the requirement that American military articles use military dates. Please join in.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to stop by and tell you when I do a PR on a page like this I tend to be very picky and it's okay to take or leave my comments. I've had this page on my watchlist for well over two years, hoping to expand it but never having the energy for the research, and I've been thrilled to watch the way it's come along. It's extremely well-written and well-researched. All I'm doing is knocking in a few holes, making a few suggestions, and basically doing a pre-FAC review. In my view it's not easy material - probably the reason I never got to it myself - and I'm trying to think of potential comments that might come up at FAC. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. I'll reply to your replies there when I get back to it tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And hi again. I'm not sure what the purpose of the above note is, but I have a feeling that my bold-faced replies to you may have been found to be offensive. The peer review is an ongoing dialogue, and I'm just trying to show that the mail has been answered (I've use the green checkmarks in other peer reviews). My sincere apologies for any perceived gruffness on my part by doing the bolding. I am most definitely not looking for attention or an answer; I simply am trying to say that the comment has been addressed. You can see that I've made some non-boldfaced comments, meaning that the issue has not yet been resolved, but the bold-faced comments mean I think I've taken care of the issue. In one case, however, I still want your feedback, but the boldface doesn't mean I want it immediately; it just means that I think the case is closed. Maybe I can come up with a more subtle or tactful way to close each issue?? Your thoughts are solicited.

I am thrilled; no, I am THRILLED to have your participation and invaluable help in this process, and I am sincerely grateful. Please forgive my misguided way of trying to answer the mail. You said you would be slow at reviewing the article, but I am going to be much slower in addressing your comments, because some of the fixes are not cosmetic, and will take some research that I'm only disposed of doing a little at a time (maybe one major issue per evening). So, please keep the comments coming, and I'll try to find another way to close each issue. Thanks for all you've done!Sarnold17 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And another reading of your kind message lets me know that I am likely over-reacting; I will assume that all is OK, and we'll get back on this tomorrow. Again, thanks for time and effort you are putting forth.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything's fine, was just stopping by. Quite frankly I haven't even had the opportunity to look at your replies there. I just didn't want you to be put off because I'm aware I'm being picky. I know the material as it happens, but clearly not any way to the degree that you do. BTW - there's no time limit on the PR. It will automatically archive 2 weeks after the last comment, but you have as long as you want to work through the issues. There's no deadline. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. And please be picky. I have no time constraints or agenda. This article is a labor of love for me, and I want it to be good.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that it's a labor or love. I'm just stopping by to let you know that I'm not leaving you in the lurch (I had been hesitant to pick this up because I knew I'd working with time constraints). I'll probably be able to finish it on Sunday or Monday night. I want to have a look too to be certain there's not too much overlap between the Hutchinson page and the Controversy page. Also a small favor - it's best not to bold and cap your answers. I'll strike the comments you've addressed when I finish up. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I'm just taking some stabs at some of the review items this evening (Friday). I will have to rewrite the section on the Antinomian Controversy, and perhaps the two trials as well. As to the former, I sense you would like it more chronological. My original intent was to present its "official" beginning, which was when Winthrop announced it in his journal in late October 1636, and then go back to its earliest signs and development, and then from there to Anne's trials. I can instead give an introductory sentence and then take things chronologically from the earliest signs, then Winthrop's pronouncement, and then subsequent events. I'm trying not to rehash the controversy article, but there are some key events I should include in passing, which I have not done, such as Wheelwright's fast-day sermon, the election of May 1637, and maybe a bit more about Vane, including his departure. Since none of these directly involved Hutchinson, they will be mentioned in passing only. I will no longer emphasize my responses. Right now I see my edits as requiring several days.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to check in. I'm sorry but haven't been around at all except barely to check messages. I had a little time to edit today but haven't yet, and won't yet, have the time to look at your sandbox. I have to work on the weekend, so probably won't be until next week until I get to it. Sorry for the delay but it's been for a good reason if that's a consolation. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And hi back at you; thanks so much for your kind note; we all have real lives to lead, and I've been a bit buried myself for the past week. Not in a hurry at all, so I'll be delighted if you just get a chance to look at the material. Oh, and congrats on your Core Contest prize; your Alps article is quite impressive!Sarnold17 (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I've decided to take a permanent break. From what I've seen of your work, I think anything you do if probably fine. Good luck. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I haven't taken a permanent break. Got a bit discouraged and overwhelmed but I'm around a bit. I have your FAC on watch; I've fixed the dashes for you with a script. The images that need US copyright need to have this license {{PD-US}} added on Commons. Either you can do it or if you don't get to it I might in a day or two. I'm not sure about the statue. I had forgotten about those. I go to Wikipedia:File copyright tags/All to find the tags. Hope this is helpful. Adding: don't hesitate to ask for help. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK; it's great to have you back! Yes, I noticed your edits on the dashes for which I am grateful, because I didn't want to track them all down and make changes. I wouldn't mind letting you add the image tags, and then see what you do, and where you do it to learn without a lot of bumbling around on my part. As for the statue, Dallin has only been dead for 68 years, so we can't use the 3-D artwork by someone dead for 70 years license. However, photos of Dallin's statues are all over wikipedia, and the few I've looked at don't seem to have any special licensing. Not sure what to do. I'd like to ignore it. I really like having you around, because I'm sure a lot of things will come up in the FAR necessitating some expertise that you will be able to provide.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the image tags; they have to go on the files on Commons because it looks as though all the images are hosted there. I won't get it tonight, but you can leave Nikkimaria a note if you'd like. I'm not terribly knowledgable about image copyright, but for an article to pass FAC all the images have to be up to snuff in regards to copyright law - I've had to delete images from some pages during image reviews. It's possible you may not be able to keep it, but I don't know enough. One person to ask would be Ruhrfisch - don't know how much he's around these days but he's very helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well this is something I'm not very good at. I've added a tag to File:JohnWinthropColorPortrait.jpg and to File:JohnCotton.jpg. File:Calvin.png is a problem because I can't tell from the source whether it's been published in the US. File:Nicaea_icon.jpg looks to be a mistake - I can't find it in the article. The statue I can't help you with; I really don't understand how that works. The person who took the photo released it to the public domain, but the question is how old the statue it - I think. Nikkimaria is good with images and will give you some help if you drop her a note on her talk page - she plows through quite a few FACs and doesn't always respond there. Also for the double periods - I found one in the sources after inc.[.]. I'll fix it so you know what to look for. Again, if you get really lost with the images try asking Ruhrfisch - he understands these better than I do and has been very helpful to me. I'm fairly busy again for a few days but will try to stop by and review the FAC over the weekend. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image tags. The Nicaea image was in the "Christian History" template, and I just removed the template, so that will resolve that issue. I'd like to keep the Calvinism template, but if the image issue isn't resolved, I'll remove it as well. I've contacted Ruhrfisch to see if he can help with the statue image issue. Thanks for fixing the "double period" issue. I still don't know why it was an issue; i.e. why can't you have an abbreviation with a period in a reference? Thanks, as always, for your continued involvement with this article.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did Antimonium Controversy and that other article ever make GA? PumpkinSky talk 02:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I had four articles sitting in the queue during the summer (placed there in May, June, July, and August). Three of them were reviewed in the past month, and are now GAs, but Antinomian Controversy is still sitting there, second in the queue. It's length may be daunting to some would-be reviewers. Thanks for checking in.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask GrappleX on his talk page. He's really good at GA reviews. Congrats on multple GAs! PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm going to hold off a bit, because I'm in the middle of a heavy duty peer review on Anne Hutchinson, hoping for this to become my first FA nominee. I'm not ready to deal with a simultaneous GA review, even though I know it could come at any time. Thanks much for checking in!Sarnold17 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem good buddy. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry I must apologise for Anne Hutchinson non-breaking spaces problems. The removal of the clickable non-breaking space from the characterset meant I had to put it in manually and I screwed up. Keith D (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I think I got most of them corrected, but may have missed a few. Regards.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	On a lark, I decided to check up on an article I reviewed some time back at WP:PR, and on its talk page, I found some much-too-kind comments from you about my editing. Looks like they've been there a while, so this barnstar is quite belated, but I just wanted you to know that this made my day. Thanks. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind sentiments. As I was helping another editor, I had just finished reviewing your Humphrey Marshall article for GA status, and since you had worked with this other editor, it was perfect to use your article as an example of what a good article should look like, and it became a highly effective instructional tool.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SInce the articst has been dead over 60 years and the work was created (published) before 1923, I used {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1944}} on File:Anne Hutchinson statue.jpeg. I would add more information to the description there too (sculptor, year created, etc). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks very much for the assistance.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Here's a formal appreciation of all the effort you have put into the GA review of Joseph Brittan. It's been a tremendous effort and goes beyond just copyediting, but that's certainly one of the areas where the article is now a lot better than before you got involved. Schwede66 05:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just popped in for a moment and so happy to see this finally happened! I was getting a little nervous - it was down to the wire! But it's a strong article and honestly, except for the long wait, you sailed through. I may be out for a few days, and I'll think about the main page request. That seems like a good day to run it. Again, congratulations for a job well-done. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarnold, I don't know whether you read the Signpost, but thought you'd like to see this about Hutchinson. Very nice job you've done all around. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks! Actually, I've not looked at the Signpost before, so have been missing out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. And also to you, best wishes for Thanksgiving.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've been on an extended wikibreak, but am now returning after about a year-and-half absence. Looks like you've been busy, with some good results. Glad things are going well. Happy holidays to you and yours. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back; how nice to hear from you! I thought you kinda disappeared after being active during my first year of tenure with wikipedia. Hope all is well with you, and best wishes to you as well.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful accolade! Vielen Dank for being the angel who notices, and brightens other people's days.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 346th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years ago, you were recipient no. 346 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know I've begun the review at Talk:John Wilson (Puritan)/GA1. Thanks for your work on this one, and on Antinomian Controversy articles generally! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for picking this one up; what is your interest in the Antinomian Controversy?Sarnold17 (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nothing special--just a general US history buff. But I've been noticing your nominations popping up at GAN and realized the connection when I clicked through. Thanks for all the work, it's adding up to quite a block of contributions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And thank YOU for your support. I'm currently working on John Cotton, and this is a huge undertaking; almost as extensive as Anne Hutchinson was. BTW, I think I've addressed all of your comments from your first reading of the Wilson article.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring John Wilson (Puritan) to Good Article status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've never gotten a barnstar for a good article before.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the GA review for Francis Marbury. There are a few issues to fix at Talk:Francis Marbury/GA1. Cheers, ⋘HueSatLum ? ❢⋙ 17:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks very much for picking up the review of this article. I hope to get on your comments before the end of the day (in the eastern U.S.).Sarnold17 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, your work got linked in my favorite online magazine today! Thought you might like to see. [2] Amazing the readership that writing a Wikipedia article gets you, eh? -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is highly cool. Thanks much, Khazar, for sharing! The Roger Williams article is high on my do-list.Sarnold17 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be reviewing Simon Favre, hopefully beginning at some point this evening. I am looking forward to analyzing the article. Thanks, dci | TALK 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and many thanks for picking up this article. I should have some time this weekend to address your comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the suggested changes. He is now in a Prep Area and hopefully will soon be a DYK. When he becomes one, I will add a notice here (if none get added) since you also helped edit the page. Thanks again for your help/input! — Wyliepedia 01:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was my pleasure. Having just recently read the obit, I was thrilled to find a wikipedia article on this guy, and then discover it was brand new and needed a DYK review. Can't think of any I'd rather do than military heroes from the Greatest Generation. My father was in the Battle of the Bulge. This means a lot to me.Sarnold17 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same about them. It was an honor and a pleasure to do his article. — Wyliepedia 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good work with all the Puritan New England articles. I see on your userpage that you're a direct descendant of Anne Hutchinson. Anyway, I've had an interesting past few days researching her for the Preparationism article I started. See what you think about the idea of a joint DYK. StAnselm (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I enjoyed the article on preparationism, and find any such work to be helpful, as it's been a real learning curve for me to understand the theology of the Puritans. Also, thank you for your kindness with the barnstar. I'm not sure what your idea is for a DYK, but I would be happy to help in any way. I currently have the John Cotton article up for DYK. Did you want to change that one to include preparationism? That might be a possibility. Let me know your thoughts.Sarnold17 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your proposed DYK; it looks fine with me; I'll probably just tweak it a bit, but will have to get to it a little later in the day.Sarnold17 (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Christianity Barnstar
		for articles related to New England Puritanism. StAnselm (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and get the review concluded ASAP; I can't promise it by tonight but I can by tomorrow. dci | TALK 02:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Sarnold17 (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no POV, copyright, stability, subject focus, or prose issues in the article, I have passed it for GA. Excellent work! dci | TALK 03:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and also thanks for making the effort for a good review.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. I hope the review didn't seem too hasty or lacking sufficient comments, but the article clearly meets GA criteria, and I didn't want to overdo the assessment. dci | TALK 00:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments here; I've now responded to them, if you want to take a second look :). Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've fixed up the reference; mind leaving a positive/negative/whatever comment on the FAC and collapsing your suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'll take care of these things tomorrow.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that on DYK everything gets reviewed eventually. I think we should stick with the double nomination - I'm sure a review will be done sooner or later. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I've not had to wait this long before, but if it eventually goes, that's OK with me.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Anne Hutchinson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 22, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Anne Hutchinson (1591–1643) was a Puritan woman, spiritual adviser, and participant in the Antinomian Controversy that shook the fledgling Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1636 to 1638. Born in England, she was the daughter of Francis Marbury, an Anglican minister and school teacher. As an adult, she became attracted to the preaching of the dynamic minister John Cotton, and followed him to New England after he was forced to emigrate in 1633. There she shared her religious understandings with women she helped as a midwife, and held meetings at her home to review recent sermons and criticise ministers who did not adhere to Cotton's "covenant of grace" theology. Her religious convictions and outspoken demeanour riled many magistrates and Puritan clergy in the Boston area, and her popularity and charisma helped create a theological schism that threatened to destroy the Puritans' religious experiment. She was tried, convicted and banished from the colony in 1637. After moving to what is now The Bronx, then controlled by the Dutch, she was killed in an attack by native Siwanoy in 1643. She has been called the most famous, or infamous, English woman in colonial American history. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work bringing John Cotton (Puritan) to GA status, expanding it ninefold in the process. Awesome job! Cerebellum (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this rather long article, and for your very kind recognition. Sarnold17 (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your note from 24 March. I just took another look at the article and your changes to it since the GA review, though, and in my opinion it's looking very good. You've done a great job of clarifying some things and linking unfamiliar terms, and on further reflection I think that you are right to keep the extra information in the Later career section (the background info in "Dealing with sectaries" and the last paragraph of "Legacy") - this material helps the reader to form an idea of Cotton's place in history, which is important. You've already fixed every issue I found in the article so I commend you on your hard work and I'm confident that this article will do well at FAC or wherever else you take it from here. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back in touch. In a month or two I hope to get a peer review on the article, and then put it up for FAC. I greatly appreciate your support. Sarnold17 (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Royal Charter of 1663 of Rhode Island a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Ï¿½ (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed between 12-14 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the initial messages I sent out went to only WikiProject members and users that had over 15 reviews). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. Now, one of the most important criteria is that you have at least 15 independent reviews. If you are reading this, you are likely 3 (or less) reviews short, so if you review another couple nominations, you can become a recruiter! If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". NOTE: If you are interested in becoming a recruiter but do not meet the 15 review requirement, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters and put your status as "Not Available" until you have reviewed enough nominations. Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:AbelCadwallader.MedalofHonor.LoudonParkCem.20120612.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ArnoldBuryingGround.sign.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Arnold.Benedict.GraveMedalion.110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ArnoldBuryingGround.EntryMarker.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ArnoldBuryingGround.lookingNorthwest.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:ArnoldBuryingGround.lookingNorth.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:BonaparteMonument.LoudonParkCem.20120612.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Bull.Henry.monument.CoddingtonCem.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Burlington.nj.take2.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Clarke.Jeremy.GraveMedalion.110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Clarke.Jeremy&Walter.graveMedalions.CliftonBurGnd.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Clarke.Walter.gravestone.CliftonBurGnd.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Clifton.BuryingGround.sign.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Clarke.Walter.graveMedalion.110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coddington.Cemetery.interior.2.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coddington.William.MemMkr.CoddingtonCem.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coddington.William.Jr.gravestone.CoddingtonCem.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coddington.Cemetery.entrance.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coggeshall.John.GraveMedalion.2.110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Coddington.William.monument.CoddingtonCem.20110722.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cooke.Nicholas.grave medallion.North Bur Gnd.20110721.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Cooke.Nicholas.grave stone.North Bur Gnd.20110721.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mary Dyer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Scott. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christopher Holder, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winterbourne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is in my view a category that is a nation+person. The American colonies were a distinct national phenomenon. We do not categorize people from a specific nation by gender directly, only by gender + occupation. If you think this should be an exemption, you should bring up a discussion to make it so at CFD. Currently I am following the general practices of other national political categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on your comments from the GA review you did for James B. Weaver: it's at FAC now, if you'd like to add any comments. Thanks again for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head up; I'll see what some of the other comments are, as I won't be able to add anything new yet. Sarnold17 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samuel Gorton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Sarnold17 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed this as there has been no response, but do renominate once the comments have been addressed. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Samuel Gorton you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Samuel Gorton for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mary Dyer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! I'll be waiting for your comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mary Dyer you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mary Dyer for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mary Dyer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mary Dyer 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 Coemgenus -- Coemgenus (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do come and discuss. DBD 21:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Clarke (Baptist minister) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I look forward to your comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Clarke (Baptist minister) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Clarke (Baptist minister) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Clarke (Baptist minister) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Clarke (Baptist minister) 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 Zwerg Nase -- Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer's Barnstar Thank you for your fantastic work on the people and history of Rhode Island. I've been reading through the List of early settlers of Rhode Island.... editing as I go, of course, because I can't help myself. I noticed this award for excellent writing and contributions, and wanted to offer it to you. Thanks again! —Dilidor (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gorton.Samuel.House.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 11:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NicholasCooke.2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ✗plicit 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Samuel Ward.cropped.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Hon. Samuel Ward, May 27, 1725-March 26, 1776, Governor of Rhode Island and member of the Continental Congress (NYPL b12349149-421946) (cropped).jpg

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]