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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 — 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]

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]

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]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]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 September 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]

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

Just a footnote: Where'd the idea come from that Beard was a communist? He did have socialist leanings, but I couldn't find anything that associated him with communism. I did come across one reference to his having been invited to join the Communist Party, but he declined. Allreet (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Allreet: — Darn, got my wires crossed. It was Howard Zinn who was a member of the American Communist party. This came up when we were discussing matters here some weeks ago. I'll fix that error on the talk page. Apologies. . -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Zinn wasn't a communist either, which his Wikipedia article makes clear. He was a Marxist Socialist, and while he was associated with organizations on the radical left, a "card carrier" he was not. During the 50s, many such organizations were accused of being "communist fronts" by the FBI, which proves nothing, considering the times.

I did find articles in the Washington Times and City Journal claiming Zinn was a communist, but far-right publications are not reliable sources on far-left academics. I sincerely doubt a more extensive search is likely to turn up anything "better". Allreet (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Howard Zinn article mentions that Zinn was "an active member of the Communist Party of the United States", although he denied it. Given his involvements, we can only wonder. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting the WP article out of context. The full quote is "the FBI first opened a domestic security investigation on Zinn...based on informant reports that Zinn was an active member of the CPUSA". As for Zinn's denial, it's credible in that there's nothing to prove he actually was a commie other than unnamed informants.

So what I wonder about is where all this originates. It turns out the City Journal article was written by an editor for the American Spectator, who offers one conjecture after another. The Washington Times piece has even less editorial integrity in that it states things that simply aren't true. For example, it says Zinn organized the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (he did not) and that SNCC was a "communist organization" (it was not). Similarly, it credits Zinn as a founder of the New Party (he was not) and that it was a socialist political party (which it wasn't).

The Wikipedia articles on SNCC, SNCC's founder Ella Baker, and the New Party say nothing about communism or socialism and make only passing references to Zinn. I then searched Mary Graber's book Debunking Howard Zinn, the subject of the Times article, and found dozens of references to communism but no evidence definitively linking Zinn. Searching further, I found ties between Graber and right-wing organizations; for example, she's a "scholar" for the Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization, and from there, I learned she's part of the campaign to ban books in schools as funded by the far right. Allreet (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that people who simply embrace god and country are often referred to as "right wing". As for the opinion piece about Grabar, given its accusatory and acutely opinionated style, it's a little difficult to take very seriously..Generally I'm against banning books, but when it comes to children, I'll make allowances. Are we going to allow Mein Kampf in schools? How about Yasser Arafat's treaties on Israel? Or works that discuss the joys of child sex? Seems that anyone who draws a line in the sand in that regard is considered "right wing". As Zinn and Beard are concerned, there's enough evidence that puts them on the left-leaning anti-nationalist shelf, their own actions and views notwithstanding. I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss the FBI's account entirely, (not saying you have) as they too often are dismissed as "right wing". I just can't assume that they simply fabricated all their accounts about Zinn or Beard out of nothing but thin air. Last, what is it that makes the Alexander Hamilton Institute right wing? Because they want to keep "In God we trust" on currency?; because they condone a newly elected president being sworn in with his hand over the Bible, as was Obama, with not a peep from the left? How often have we had to deal with our views being referred to as "nationalist" – simply because we adhere to the best sources who haven't ignored the obvious? Perhaps it's best to leave the opinion pieces alone and stick to the facts. In any case, we seem to be getting away from the discussion on the Constitution Talk page, where I like to think we've done a good job of keeping sources like Beard and Zinn in check with the preponderance of reliable sources, and at the risk of sounding patronizing, we have you to thank for that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of Dean R. Snow.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly — I seriously doubt there's any other image, let alone a free image, of Dr. Snow out there, as I have searched far and wide and have only come up with this one image. So it looks like we have the same issue as we had with the Starna image, so I'll just delete the image. Apologies for any issues I may have created. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize. You aren't the first to upload an image such as this, and you won't be the last. You can dispute the tagging, if you like, by following the instructions given in the template, but, as I posted at MCQ, the policy has always been quite clear that this type of non-free use isn't allowed in general. It's not just that a free equivalent image needs to currently exist, but that it's reasonable to expect the one could created. When it comes to living persons, the latter is almost always an issue because a new photo of the person could reasonably be expected to be taken and uploaded under a free license. You can, of course, dispute what's considered reasonable, but generally it has to do with something more than not being able to find a free image. One thing about persons like Snow is that it might be possible to find an image of them that was first published in the US prior to 1978 that might now be considered to be within the public domain. Another thing that sometimes works is to simply request an image per WP:PERMISSION. Sometimes a copyright holder will provide a free equivalent image when asked, and some have had success with this approach. Another possibility it to look for images on Snow on Flickr, YouTube or other social media accounts. Sometimes the copyright holders of such content uploaded their work under a free license that's OK for Wikipedia (as long the uploader is the original copyright holder of the content). The default has never been to allow a non-free to be used until a free equivalent image can be found simply to add an image to an article. If that were the case, there would be no BLPs without a primary image in the main infobox or at the top of the article. Absent any sourced critical commentary about the image itself or the personal appearance as shown in the image, it's going to be really quite hard to justify such a type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly — Thanks for taking the time to cover these things. I'll consider contacting Doctors Snow and Starna, but so far I haven't come across any contact information, and as these gentlemen are in their 80's it's likely they're retired, so even if contact was made, it seems unlikely they'd respond. Again, thanks for your words of conciliation. Best. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:02, 15 July 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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

I presume you received my ping regarding the Bibliography of slavery in the United States. While I was posting that, I made a couple minor edits in the bibliography and received a batch of error messages tied to its size. So I raised the issue on the Help Desk. You may find the replies I received helpful. Hope all's well. Allreet (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention this in my Help Desk reply, but think it's more relevant here. The Constitution bibliography is about the same size as the one on slavery, though I agree with you on the idea of splitting either article based solely on size. However, I do plan to "pare" the article by following the category approach used in the Civil War bibliography, as another editor suggested and, btw, that I intended from the start (see the edit summary from when I created the article). But the criteria here is pragmatics, that is, to help readers.

Categories will make the bibliography more useful. While I've gathered most of the more important books, I'm certain I could double its size with books I didn't get to and quadruple it with journal articles alone. The same probably applies to the Constitution's bibliography. The difference is that it not would serve the interest of readers to split it, plus there are not as many obvious or distinct sub-categories readers would turn to (one big exception would be categories related to constitutional law, but they're primarily of interest to attorneys). Another advantage of this approach is that we'll be able to reference relevant issues that post-date slavery. Reconstruction, for example, is a crucial topic, and there are well over a hundred books on the subject, most of which include discussions on slavery. Better, then, to point readers to its bibliography. As for future growth, none of the bibliographies on sub-categories are likely to get out of hand. Thus, the sky's the limit.

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

Template:Washington–Franklin coil stamps (Table 1 of 2) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington–Franklin coil stamps (Table 2 of 2) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:James Fulton Zimmerman, photo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hammondsport, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 September 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: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

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: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hammondsport, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Wing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Washington Franklin Imperforate issues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Burials at Forest Hill Cemetery, Utica, New York indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 8 December 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 looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Hello Gwillhickers, Allreet, and Rjensen, and the best of holidays to you and yours. The 250th anniversaries are finally here. First up was the Boston Tea Party and next is the Philadelphia Tea Party. Light the birthday cakes! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to all my WP friends as well...over the holidays and in the year ahead. Living a bit more than a stone's throw from Philadelphia and recognizing the more recent attention bestowed on the city in another "field", I also have to wish y'all a Brotherly Shove. Allreet (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Founding Fathers of the United States, where editors are discussing the casing of 'Founding Fathers'. Of interest is Allreet's detailed research through many of the books and other sources concerning the casing of FF. Nice work by Allreet, and an interesting discussion (although not an RM, so it can't be determinative, which is why contacting you seems fine). I hope all goes well, have a good Super Bowl Sunday (America's fun day), and I've enjoyed your Christmas seals article edits. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn:. — Re: Latest developments. Have been debating the issue about capitalization with a couple of new comers. You might want to chime in again and offer or reaffirm your position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up regarding that discussion: I think I misunderstood what you meant by "opinion essay", and so removed my part of the message here , before you responded.

It looks like you didn't get a chance to see my edit before you responded to it. Just flagging in case you want to remove your part too. Or, of course, feel free to leave it there too, that's fine with me.

And apologies for the mixup. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've gone ahead and removed this section from the United States Navy article as it appears to be a collection of original research, with some malformed citations at the end that are difficult to understand what they're supporting but only appeared to reference a claim about the U.S.S. Arizona. You're welcome to reinsert the content if it can be cleaned up (there were several typos and grammar errors I noticed while reverting) and the claims directly referenced to reliable sources. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back — Moved discussion to Talk:Sally Hemings so others might join in. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (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: Hawkeye7 on US Army divisions in the Pacific War, Nick-D on the First Indochina War

Hi Gwillhickers, are you ever planning to come back and support the racist and misogynistic arguments you made at Talk:Sally Hemings? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, what is the point? I just read the discussion, and there is no semblance of consensus for @Gwillhickers' proposed verbiage nor for their arguments, many of which are totally off-topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that Gwillhickers snaps out of it, I don't think that they really understand what they've been writing and on reflection their opinions will be moderated to something much closer to other editor's. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They’re free to have opinions as immoderately far from those of other editors as one can imagine; this particular view of theirs is not going to have any bearing on content and there’s no need to revive a dead discussion for the goal of changing an editor’s minority opinion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is still live, but I will desist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gwillhickers, my thoughts were to ask if you might be interested in looking at the Washington page with the possibility of moving it forward for a promotion. The James Madison article from last year was promoted and I thought it might be nice to do something like this for Washington as well. I'm starting to consider that it might be nice to think about a nomination for promotion of the Washington page some time before his birthday celebration early next year, and maybe you might think about doing it as a co-nomination. Any interest? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2024 (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: Hawkeye7 looks at battles of Operation Veritable in 1945

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]