User talk:Bustamove1/Archive 1

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mestizo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Religious economy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

unsourced section on Carl Becker
re section 3	Political views. Most of the section needs references to published reliable sources or it will be erased. Rjensen (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Many apologies, I planned on source citations when I finished. I'll use the AHA bio, Becker's reviews on Croce, the debate over said reviews in secondary sources, the Declaration study, the Carl Becker Papers, New Liberties for Old, Becker's textbook ("free traders"), Dewey's Polish-Am issues, etc. I also want to add a segment on his diss, "home rule" and "rule at home," NY trade with Caribbean before and after the 1766 "resolution" to the Stamp Act Crisis, 1767-68 Revenue/Vice-Admiralty Court legislative impact on NY provisioning of the Caribbean (including "free ports"), etc. I also wish to peruse secondary source studies on "Crown Point" currency emissions and NY legislature factionalism---beyond the Newport vs. Providence carrier port issues during the Seven Years' War. I also wish to include Greater Caribbean ecologies from a presentation and paper, but I found in grad school research that wars were more frequent and significant (at least during the early eighteenth century). All forthcoming~BAM Bustamove1 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * good plan--Suggest you add one or two in the meantime. Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carl L. Becker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revolutionary War.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, nice work
Heartfelt thanks for transforming the stub article about the book The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution into such an exhaustive discussion of the book's development, arguments, etc. I am about to sit down and marinate in the article (when I should be doing something else, frankly). — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 16:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Not done yet. I'm contributing content principally during seasonal breaks, when I (don't) have them. When I am done, I will most likely generate new pages for certain books and transfer content from this wiki to those pages. I approached another stub in this manner, and it worked out Bustamove1 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have criticisms. What you have composed is not an encyclopedia article but an academic paper with extensive comments on the career of Bailyn and contemporaries, as well as some asides about contemporary politics. You should find another place to post it, because it doesn't belong where it is.


 * For further clarification, the article is not a "wiki." Wikipedia as a whole is a wiki. Each article in this wiki is an accessibly written, factual description of a clearly defined topic, using language that aspires to neutrality. That's what the community has agreed to do. That's not at all what you've provided.


 * I find WP:NOT to be probably the most useful introduction to Wikipedia. To paraphrase part of it, Wikipedia is not a place to exhibit our refined subjectivity or mastery of ideas. As writers, we are asked to keep ourselves out of the picture, collaborate, and focus solely on the topic at hand.


 * What belongs in this article? Off the top of my head: a publication history, reception history (with brief quotes of published reviews), reactions from other scholars, cites of the book by people outside of academia (e.g. by politicians, artists), retrospective appreciations, Bailyn's own assessment of his work in hindsight. These should be organized under plainly worded subheads, not the stylish but somewhat opaque ones you have come up with. They should be written with all the style and panache of a bill of lading, bearing in mind that a very large slice of our audience are not native English readers.


 * Please copy the work you've done so far if you wish to save it (though it will always be available in the article history). You might post it in your userspace, which is for posting non-encyclopedic or unfinished work. To start a new page there, just go to your home page and add to the URL, for example, changing "Bustamove1" to "Bustamove1/Origins" and pressing Enter.


 * You can also talk back on my talk page or reply here and include to make sure I see it. — ℜ ob C.  alias ALAROB 16:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that you have two flags granted to users for specialized functions, including autopatrolled rights. Do you have any additional administrative and/or editorial credentials? Most of your critique, I believe, stemmed from draft content, not yet revised for an encyclopedia and otherwise intended for additional articles. I intended to remove that content after I completed, and revised, the article draft content (see discussion above). Henceforth I will use an external document and then transfer the content when I'm ready. As you seemed to surmise, I did not visit Wikipedia with the initial intention of transforming stubs into articles. I read that you decided to go on vacation (before the automated template message?), but below are responses to your comments:
 * 1) Rest assured, I'm not attempting to pseudonymously demonstrate my approach to "refined subjectivity" or my unparalleled "mastery of ideas" on Wikipedia, even for clinic office managers and wayward dissertators adrift in Birmingham. The article features your "publication history," "reactions from other scholars," "cites of the book by people outside of academia (e.g. by politicians, artists)," "retrospective appreciations," and "Bailyn's own assessment of his work in hindsight." I do plan on including more "reception history," although I'm already concerned that the additional "reception history" will extend beyond your "topic at hand."
 * 2) The "stylish, but opaque" titles could include subtitles, e.g., Sources and Traditions: The Sources of Ideological Origins, which would address your "opaque"...I thought (most likely erroneously) that such a revision would antagonize you and yours, so I posted alternate section headings.
 * 3) I usually use "wiki-links" and "wiki-articles," irrespective of my own perspective on Wikipedia entries as "articles"---I wrote "wikis" for shorthand in the context of an article discussion, but I do see your general point.
 * 4) As you are well aware, historians, especially those who research "a theory of politics," draft essays that invariably reference "contemporary politics." I will attempt to diminish any and all of your "asides," regardless.
 * 5) A preponderance, supermajority, etc., of my source base is not comprised of primary sources. I quoted the correspondence between Bailyn and Hofstadter, for example, from an academic study.
 * 6) The automated template message, rather than your comments, indicated a high frequency of "technical terms." Most such "technical terms" in the article derive, or were directly quoted from, Bailyn's writings. I will, however, take that component of the template message into consideration for my own paraphrased sentences.
 * I plan on continuing to revise for "encyclopedic form," although the removal of specific content and prospective transferals to additional pages should significantly advance both your goals and mine. I will remove your template message within 48 hours, if that's amenable to you. Bustamove1 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope you are not too annoyed with me. My intent is to be constructive. I am not pulling rank, because I have no rank to pull.
 * I did note the unfinished state of the text. Drafting an article in userspace is a good way to avoid having to leave notes to oneself in the article. There is also a template that can alert other editors that the article is being actively worked on, but it is meant to be used only during active editing sessions, no more than a few hours.
 * The subheadings are "stylish" to me because you've decorated them with italics. They're "opaque" because they don't transparently describe what the section contains. WP:BOOKS has suggestions about how to organize the contents of a book article.
 * You are correct that essays frequently refer to contemporary politics. An encyclopedia article is not an essay. Originality is actively discouraged.
 * Re "technical terms": I don't think your writing suffers much from that, for what my opinion's worth. -- ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Re: essays. In my response to your comment, I wiki-linked "contemporary" to the lecture venue, a sub-section heading in the article. As explained in the article, this is where the historian in question drafted an essay for a presentation on "contemporary" and "Revolutionary ideology." I have not self-identified as a historian principally engaged in primary source research, on Wikipedia. Again, I did not intend to transform the stub. I draft essays by assessing everything but the kitchen sink, and then whittling away. Given that my methods now (not deliberately) interface with Wikipedia, I'll be prepared for next time. Bustamove1 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed the link but didn't know how to interpret it. I thought it most likely that you were pointing to the Millennium Council as an example of something "contemporary." If it was the venue for an address by Bailyn, you'll have to forgive me for not knowing that. If the article mentions it, then it does so in too cryptic a manner for me to grasp. Guess I'm too earthly a creature to "traverse the wind-time" of Bailyn's life with you. ;-) — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 23:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it: "the historian in question" is your good self. Is that right? Are you intimating that the article text is related to an address you gave to the White House Millennium Council? — ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 00:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I get it: "the historian in question" is your good self. Is that right? I have not self-identified as a historian engaged principally in primary source research, on Wikipedia. I also don't self-identify as "good," but I defer to your appraisal, especially after you address my uncertainty over your status. Given the subjects and predicates of the sentences, my money is on Bailyn, rather than you or a third party, as the "historian in question." I excluded the remainder of your response because I was a bit confused by it.
 * I noticed the link but didn't know how to interpret it. The link also appears in the corresponding subsection heading of the wiki-article under discussion. I'm still drafting the content, which includes a topic sentence with wiki-links and introductions to quotations by Bailyn. I hope the topic sentence and wiki-links weren't too cryptic. I also hope Bailyn wasn't too cryptic, but that's par for the course.
 * Guess I'm too earthly a creature to "traverse the wind-time" Are you referring to my user page, rather than the wiki-article? I'm a tad confused. Sowwannatin & Sáchimoachepewéssin both connect wind to temporalities, and not solely to wind speed, atmospheric pressure, or even infantile notions of breaking wind. I hope that's not too cryptic, either, given the physical science courses with indigenous perspectives in recently-established tribal colleges and community colleges. More importantly, I hope that ends the conversation for a new beginning. Bustamove1 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can tell I'm being waved off, but first let me explain my mistake. I absent-mindedly checked the Bernard Bailyn article for a reference to the White House Millennium Council rather than The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, where it is obviously present, and where anyone who wasn't distracted would have sought it. I realized my error shortly after posting the comment but was a truant about returning to clarify. Actually, I forgot. So everything you have said or implied about me is evidently true. (Sorry, that was sarcastic. I'll stop.) I will suppress further attempts at light-heartedness. Addressing you as "your good self" was meant to be friendly, but reading it with fresh eyes I can see that the sentence may have seemed as if meant to be cutting. Plain speech is best between strangers. In plain terms, thanks for continuing to work on the Ideological Origins article. Over and out. – ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 17:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * During the White House Millennium lecture, Bailyn revisited and reconfigured certain arguments, advanced in The Origins of American Politics, corresponding with his research for The Peopling of British North America series. He also recapitulated examples of "Revolutionary ideology" in light of these updates, the latter of which rested on the same not-so-basic premises. I thought that this lecture supported your category of "Bailyn's own assessment of his work in hindsight," but perhaps not? In any event, I previously expressed uncertainty over the inclusion of material published after the 1992 "enlarged edition", with "post-script", for The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. You did suggest "retrospective" publications and (again) "Bailyn's own assessment of his work in hindsight," many of which were published after that year. I'll make the decision to delete or transfer (or not) after I tentatively complete the wiki-article.
 * As far the Bernard Bailyn article is concerned: my actual filial/biological (with all the ethno-racial issues)/non-dichotomous kin are familiar with the ramifications of doublespeak and sarcasm, at least in inter- and intra- partisan politics---if not in the biopolitics of subalternity, hyperdescent, hypodescent, intersectionality, and war. I'm not too enthused by the notion of pseudonymously completing a wiki-article on a book that I read for a seminar, by a man who may or may not have known me, here or elsewhere, but I suppose that's often the case in history and knowledge production. One of his students considered Bailyn "one of the most distinguished historians in the Western world," yet claimed that "he is not as well known as he should be." I'm not sure that I should be known on here, either, but we'll see. Ciao w/ a wave. Bustamove1 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can tell I'm being waved off, but first let me explain my mistake. I absent-mindedly checked the Bernard Bailyn article for a reference to the White House Millennium Council rather than The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, where it is obviously present, and where anyone who wasn't distracted would have sought it. I realized my error shortly after posting the comment but was a truant about returning to clarify. Actually, I forgot. So everything you have said or implied about me is evidently true. (Sorry, that was sarcastic. I'll stop.) I will suppress further attempts at light-heartedness. Addressing you as "your good self" was meant to be friendly, but reading it with fresh eyes I can see that the sentence may have seemed as if meant to be cutting. Plain speech is best between strangers. In plain terms, thanks for continuing to work on the Ideological Origins article. Over and out. – ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 17:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * During the White House Millennium lecture, Bailyn revisited and reconfigured certain arguments, advanced in The Origins of American Politics, corresponding with his research for The Peopling of British North America series. He also recapitulated examples of "Revolutionary ideology" in light of these updates, the latter of which rested on the same not-so-basic premises. I thought that this lecture supported your category of "Bailyn's own assessment of his work in hindsight," but perhaps not? In any event, I previously expressed uncertainty over the inclusion of material published after the 1992 "enlarged edition", with "post-script", for The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. You did suggest "retrospective" publications and (again) "Bailyn's own assessment of his work in hindsight," many of which were published after that year. I'll make the decision to delete or transfer (or not) after I tentatively complete the wiki-article.
 * As far the Bernard Bailyn article is concerned: my actual filial/biological (with all the ethno-racial issues)/non-dichotomous kin are familiar with the ramifications of doublespeak and sarcasm, at least in inter- and intra- partisan politics---if not in the biopolitics of subalternity, hyperdescent, hypodescent, intersectionality, and war. I'm not too enthused by the notion of pseudonymously completing a wiki-article on a book that I read for a seminar, by a man who may or may not have known me, here or elsewhere, but I suppose that's often the case in history and knowledge production. One of his students considered Bailyn "one of the most distinguished historians in the Western world," yet claimed that "he is not as well known as he should be." I'm not sure that I should be known on here, either, but we'll see. Ciao w/ a wave. Bustamove1 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As far the Bernard Bailyn article is concerned: my actual filial/biological (with all the ethno-racial issues)/non-dichotomous kin are familiar with the ramifications of doublespeak and sarcasm, at least in inter- and intra- partisan politics---if not in the biopolitics of subalternity, hyperdescent, hypodescent, intersectionality, and war. I'm not too enthused by the notion of pseudonymously completing a wiki-article on a book that I read for a seminar, by a man who may or may not have known me, here or elsewhere, but I suppose that's often the case in history and knowledge production. One of his students considered Bailyn "one of the most distinguished historians in the Western world," yet claimed that "he is not as well known as he should be." I'm not sure that I should be known on here, either, but we'll see. Ciao w/ a wave. Bustamove1 (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Batman 462 Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Batman 462 Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I do have questions about the non-free content rationale concerns, which I posted to the media copyright questions page as well as the file talk page. I will try to include a discussion of the issue and its significance in the corresponding wiki article in order to address WP:NFCC#8. Update: I appreciated your responses and the resolution. Bustamove1 (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

re Perry Miller
I'm going to remove some material you added to this article. Some of it looks like copy and paste errors? And the rest I feel really needs some sort of sourcing. BTW, I am writing an article on Raymond Stearns, another colonial historian, so take a gander at that when it appears, if you wish. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I planned on expanding the Perry Miller wiki-article, but I received a request to add content to another wiki-article. I only had added the Edmund S. Morgan claim, information about his parents, and topics for further content. I'll source the information about his parents, especially his father, and then paste it back in (during the next week). The rest was only an outline that required deletion due to the other focus. I'll check out your wiki-article as well. Bustamove1 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well... it had been sitting there for a month or more, so I figured something should be done to clean it up. It looks bad to leave articles looking like that for too long. But I certainly understand the "I'll get right back to that, I will!" impulse. Brianyoumans (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Except, of course, for editor adds such as,  ,  , etc. Bustamove1 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourced his parents. I have more sources on his stint in the O.S.S., but I'm hesitant to add for a variety of reasons (nothing to do with veracity and I don't intend to be cryptic). Please add content, if you're so inclined. I'm certain the public would benefit from more contributors. I'll return to this page when I'm finished with my other foci. Many thanks. Bustamove1 (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Radicalism of the American Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constituent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Batman 462.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Batman 462.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) 03:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia
 * Correct. The image was formerly integrated into Ace the Bat-Hound.
 * 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
 * Well, unless a Non-free media information and use rationale was given, which it was---and confirmed by another editor (note the low resolution, etc., fulfillment of parameters).
 * please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia.
 * "Replacement," per WP:FREER, is whether "non-free content [could] be replaced by a free version that has the same effect." A user deleted my image of an Ace storyline cover and added an interior panel for Ace from the same comic book. The user's new panel image is also non-free and similarly provides a Non-free media information and use rationale. Thus the new image is not a "replacement" for my image, per WP:FREER.
 * please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.
 * The user did not include a rationale for the removal. The user did retain most of my previous cover caption for the new interior panel image. Not sure why. I'm also uncertain why you and your bot have orphaned and deleted almost every image uploaded to Wikipedia by our new user. Heads-up on that?
 * The user did not include a rationale for the removal. The user did retain most of my previous cover caption for the new interior panel image. Not sure why. I'm also uncertain why you and your bot have orphaned and deleted almost every image uploaded to Wikipedia by our new user. Heads-up on that?


 * If you're asking, my only major editorial concern with the new image is, per WP:CENT/FUC, "since interior pages are actually the content being sold, they have to be used sparingly." The only actual exception to the cover-over-interior-panel rule would be if the interior panel "image pertains and which makes a critical point about the scene or panel in question, and the point is more clearly made if illustrated."


 * I'm sure you're aware of all this. If another editor accepted the user's non-free use rationale, and the panel was written by Alan Grant with art by Norm Breyfogle and Steve Mitchell (co-recreators of Ace), then more power. You can delete my image posthaste. Be well. Bustamove1 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)