User talk:Cmguy777/Archive 1

Articles for deletion nomination of Thomas Jefferson and slavery
I have nominated Thomas Jefferson and slavery, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Thomas Jefferson and slavery has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Newportm (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Now" in Thomas Jefferson and slavery
The time-present connotation of "now" in this edit caught my eye because it looked like blatant vandalism in the Huggle interface we use to patrol Wikipedia. What I saw appeared to be someone claiming that Thomas Jefferson was "now U.S. congressman from Virginia," as in today! On closer inspection, I want to encourage you to continue your productive and constructive editing of the page. Thanks for your help. Newportm (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I will avoid using time tenses. They can be confusing. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)}

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

When the deletion tag comes off
You'll be able to tell when the AfD is closed and the deletion tag can come off when there is a bunch of text at the top saying so. The article will either be deleted or remain, and the closer of the AfD usually takes the tag off of the article. If I were you, I would keep a copy of the latest version of the page, in case they decide to delete. That's not necessarily the end of the article, you might just have gotten a bum deal from the closer. I've seen AfDs come up two and three times; there is strictly speaking always the possibility of appeal, but on the other hand, there's no such thing as double jeopardy, either. In practical terms, though, there is a weight of precedence that comes with previous AfD decisions about an article, whether it has survived AfD, in which case its survival indicates there must be some merit to the article, or been deleted by one, which is a black mark against the article. Anarchangel (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Statue Jefferson.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Statue Jefferson.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the photos off. I am adding photos that are on other Wikipedia pages. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)}

Multiple Issues Tag
I am considering deleting the Multiple Issues tag. If anyone has any objections please let me know. I believe the article is in good shape. Continued work is being done. I added appropriate photos that really make the page attractive. I also added a link to the main page. Please let me know any opinions on the matter. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)}

I am taking the Multiple Issue tag off for the following reasons: 1. The article has authentic sources. 2. Any unpublished synthesis and/or opinions have been erased. 3. The article flows in a chronological fashion. 4. There are valuable links. 5. Information about Sally Hemings has been updated. 6. Valuable contributors have added to the articulate flow of the article. 7. Appropriate photos and maps have been added.

Yes. The article needs more work, cleaning up, and general aesthetics. However, the Multiple Issues tag is unnecessary at this time.

{Cmguy777 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)}

File copyright problem with File:Monticello Slave Grounds.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Monticello Slave Grounds.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Monticello .jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Monticello .jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 17:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant ‎
Since you have done some extensive editing on Ulysses S. Grant, I was wondering whether you could look at the disagreement currently going on about an edit I made to the section on General Order 11? A user keeps reverting it, in the rudest possible way. A third voice would be helpful. Thanks. Iosefina (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization of headings
The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,


 * Important things to know about this subject

not:
 * Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
 * capitalize the first word,
 * capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
 * begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:MSH for more information. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is a force of habit for me to capitalize. I can be more alert with the First word capitalization headings. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)}

Yes, I really wish you would respect the Wikipedia style in this regard. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant
Hi. I've reverted all your changes to Ulysses S. Grant, since every one I looked at was a cut and paste from another website, and we don't allow that on Wikipedia; we treat copyright very carefully here. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I sited the sources. I respect copyrights. The text can be reworded, however, the facts will remain the same. The introduction to Grant's presidential campaign has are few factual errors. One, Grant did not refuse the appointment to Secretary of War. He reluctantly accepted a vacated office, under protest, is more accurate, while retaining his generalship. Grant ended giving up the keys to the office back to Stanton, without protest. Two, the Tenure of Office act was ruled unconstitional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1926, 40 years after it had been repealed in 1887. It is also important to keep the votes counted correctly without rounding the numbers. Every vote counts. There is a danger of rewording everything, in my opinion, the facts have a tendency to get lost, like socks in a washing machine. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)}
 * Feel free to correct information that is incorrect. Don't cut and paste from other sites, even if you cite the sources; it's still a copyright violation to do so. I knew I'd likely throw out some baby with the bathwater, but I wasn't going to sift through the chaff of copyright issues to find the wheat to preserve. (Can I mix some more metaphors in here?) --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've looked at your new work. And I've looked at the source. We need to do a LOT better than this for sourcing, and we can. Everything on that list (which is the sort of random list of trivia we discourage from Wikipedia articles) is sourced to five books -- which should be referenced and cited, not this list. Also, while I'm here - please desist from making dozens upon dozens of consecutive edits to article. Become familiar with the "preview" button, which should save a lot of error correction. Also, please use the edit summary field. Good work on the data improvement, certainly. --jpgordon:==( o ) 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate all your information. I thought that web sites could be used as sources.  Is there a list of web sites that can be used as sources or does every source have to have a book to sight the source?  I am learning to use the preview.  In fact I did that using the Yellowstone National Park section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)}
 * Sure, web sites can be used. But take a look at our reliable sources and verifiability policies. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (since you and I can edit it without anyone looking over our shoulders). However, its goal is to point people to reliable sources...ah ha! I just might be wrong regarding your source. The author is one Diane Meives, who is some sort of Grant historian (whether professional or amateur, I didn't dig deep enough to know.) And the entire Grant website looks pretty darned good. So that's a good source after all. Sorry to have said otherwise. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all my edits on Ulysess S. Grant have been deleted. It is obvious that Wikipedia is more of a blog. If the edits don't suit the "control" editors then it gets deleted. Parts of the Grant site is good, but there are sections that are biased and sections without citations. I was expanding the Civil Rights section and made it chronological. Then deleted. It just reverted pretty much where it was before. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)}
 * Problem is, you're still doing something that would get you a failing grade in school if you got caught; you're copying text from other sites and making very very minor changes to them. --jpgordon:==( o ) 03:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the article, it is taking most of the information from this | website, yet those edits are allowed. I put in edits from another website that restated the facts, not copied. Why have these edits been allowed since they are almost word for word the same?{Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

Wikipedia article:
 * Grant's 1868 campaign slogan, "Let us have peace," defined his motivation and assured his success. As president for two terms, Grant made many advances in both civil and human rights. He won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave the freedman the vote, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, which empowered the president "to arrest and break up disguised night marauders". He pressed for the former slaves to be "possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it."

Website article:
 * Grant's 1868 campaign slogan, "Let us have peace," defined his motivation and assured his success. As president for two terms, Grant made many advances in human rights. He won passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, which gave the freedman the vote, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, which empowered the president "to arrest and break up disguised night marauders." He pressed for the former slaves to be "possessed of the civil rights which citizenship should carry with it."

Cmguy, I have some of the same concerns over this article as you, and feel there's still work to be done. On another note, I agree with your views on some of the editing I see taking place; there seem to be those who view any attempt to edit their article as heresy, and I got much the same sort of treatment in the Bonnie and Clyde article not long ago, plus two messages from a particular editor on my talk page re other things. Hushpuckena (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is looking good for now. My main purpose was to expand the article, not necessarily change other people's contributions.  So far I have been allowed to do that.  I have learned with good sources, particularly books with established authors, and when the contribution is a summary, not "cut and paste", the contribution will stay in the article.  {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)}


 * I'll continue the review on the weékend, probably Sunday. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Science and education in Israel
Hi, I made certain changes to your recent addition to S&E in I. The subject of educational discrimination is important, but needs to be presented with a more NPOV. I hope you agree that it is more convincing now. Arikk (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The edit is good. The issue of forced segregation and school funding in schools are signifigant issues and should be addressed in the article. The update about the 2008 court ruling is good. I appreciate the edit! {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)}

Lost $9B
I moved this to the "Presidency of GWB second term" article and the "Iraq War" article (under criticisms and cost), where they are more appropriate. BLPs should be about a person and that person's life. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking

 * The Guide to writing better articles says: "When you do create links, link only one or a few instances of the same term; don't link all instances of it."
 * Avoiding common mistakes warns against "Over-Wikifying": "Wikipedia thrives on internal links, but keep it within reason."
 * Also, links should be made only where they are relevant to the article, and not to every word. See Make only links relevant to the context.

WP:OVERLINK specifically says:
 * "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link:
 * plain English words;
 * terms whose meaning would be understood by almost all readers;
 * items that would be familiar to most readers, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions and common units of measurement (particularly if a conversion is provided);
 * dates." Ground Zero | t 01:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. I appreciate the input.  I will make sure not to over link. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)}

Walter de Coutances
Hi there. I just checked out the above article and its review. It looks in good order to me, and if it were down to me i'd pass this at GA - but it's up to you. If you need any assistance with the admin side of closing a review, let me know. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread concerning you
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not vandalized anything. I was just going by the GA review! {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)}


 * I'd agree that it doesn't appear to be vandalism. I would ask you to use the edit summary field though, if only so other users can more easily figure out what edits you're making. Best, B figura  (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Sorry. I was scarred at the rate of reduction of size. Please, no hard feelings. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW Supreme, it's probably better to just directly ask the user in question before jumping straight to ANI, unless there's something obviously wrong that needs admin intervention. -- B figura (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was only going by the GA review to give more sources and reduce the size of the Article. The GA review also recommended a separate Ulysses S. Grant presidency page. I appreciate your concern with vandalism. However, no vandalism is involved. :) Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)}

Thanks Iben! {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)}

Grant
Yes, I will review the article. slow down and be kind. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

World War II GA
Would you mind explaining these edits? Were you just on the wrong page when that happened? That's the World War II GA review, it shouldn't have anything to do with Grant, and there's still a review in progress there. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone pasted a GA review for the WWII article in the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals discussion page. What does WWII have to do with Ulysses S. Grant?  I had removed the content.  Where is the GA review for Ulysses S. Grant? {Cmguy777 (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)}


 * The GA review discussion page for that article is here. What happened was that another editor mistakenly transcluded the WWII review onto the talk page for the Grant article, which I have now reverted. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ulysses S. Grant
My protocol is generally not to review an article I already have, so that it can get a fresh pair of eyes. Looks like it's in much better shape though, and the presidential administration article you created is very impressive. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I left a couple of comments on the articles talk page. I do not believe I am qualified to fully review this article for GA but I noticed a few things that probably would/should have come up. Other than these rather nitpicky things the article looks very good to me. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Ill drop by and take a look. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant comments
Here are some comments about Ulysses S. Grant. I do not normally participate in formal reviews of articles (either as a reviewer or reviewee), so treat these as friendly input.

As others have stated, the article is quite long. You have done a good thing by creating associated sub-articles, but you could perhaps shorten this one in the areas for which there is more detailed information elsewhere. For example, I don't see why the Scandals section should be more than a couple of paragraphs. I'm going to limit my comments to the military sections, because that is where my interests lie.

One way in which you could trim this article is by removing details that are immaterial to his biography. The first one that jumps out at me is the identity of the officer who surrendered Fort Sumter. There are many other examples. When you read the description of a battle in a biography, the focus should not be on the specific details of the battle, but on the person. Did he employ any unusual or innovative strategy or tactics? Did he exhibit any personal achievements or foibles--conspicuous bravery, cowardice, drunkenness? Did he learn lessons that affected his later career? Did official or public reaction to the battle have any particular effect?

Grant's 1861 promotion was not in the militia. The terminology is "brigadier general of volunteers," which means that he was a Federal officer with the rank in the temporarily expanded United States Army, but not a rank in the regular army. (There are some authors who use the expression US Volunteers, or USV, but that is not a practice in Wikipedia ACW articles. If you would like to see guidelines on formatting ACW battle and biography articles, check out User:Hlj/CWediting. Notice in particular that we attempt to use actual ranks, such as Maj. Gen. Jones, rather than rely on the honorific "General" Jones.)

You offer no justification for calling the District of Southeast Missouri "critical."

The Battle of Belmont was hardly a "strategic" action and was actually inconclusive, not a defeat. You should link directly to the battle article when you discuss it. The battle article has an interesting anecdote about Grant being the last one to board the riverboat.

In your description of Fort Henry, it is Wikipedia practice to say Union Army instead of U.S. Army. I do not think that listing the casualties for minor battles such as Fort Henry is very interesting to the reader. What is more interesting is that Grant led a combined land and naval force against the fort. For some reason you list the commanders of Fort Donelson in the description of Fort Henry, but don't mention its commander. (Well, that is an example of a detail that doesn't really matter.) I noticed that in this paragraph and many others, you have a leading space in front of a footnote. The footnote number should touch the punctuation at the end of the sentence.

For Fort Donelson, there is no reason to italicize Indian Creek (and the name of the creek is really pretty unimportant for the biography). Grant was 4 miles down river, but that was actually north of the fort. It's "rout", not "route", but that is hardly an accurate description. The Confederates pushed the Union Army back over a mile, but they rallied and held.

You should consult the article Army of the Tennessee for a more accurate description of the command changes prior to the battle of Shiloh.

The town of Savannah is on the eastern bank of the river, 10 miles north of Pittsburg Landing. The terminology "hard strike" is unusual for a military article and should be replaced by "attack." Your observation about fortifications should be balanced by the fact that their use was very rare this early in the war. The article Battle of Shiloh has a more accurate description of Grant's reaction to the start of the battle. In fact, the second paragraph of that article is a better summary of the battle action; Sherman and McClernand on the Union right actually gave way, leaving the majority of action around the Hornet's nest on the Union left. Reinforcements actually arrived on the evening of April 6. Lew Wallace was subordinate to Grant, so he did not receive reinforcements from him. You do not mention why Beauregard was in command the second day, although I am not attempting to get you to increase the length of this section, which is probably 100% too long. (To give you some perspective, a biography of another general/president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, devotes about as much space to all of World War II as you do to this single battle.)

The article Army of the Tennessee has a more accurate description of the command arrangements before Corinth.

The final paragraph of the Chattanooga section probably belongs in the following section.

The first sentence of the section Overland Campaign is overstated in comparison to the preceding paragraph. Butler's campaign was called the Bermuda Hundred Campaign and Sigel's was the start of the Valley Campaigns of 1864. We use Roman numerals for Union corps: II Corps. Usually when casualties are described for the Overland campaign, we make it clear that Grant had replacements available and that the losses incurred by Lee were often of higher percentage to his army, which had no replacements available.

In Petersburg, link to Brig. Gen.  William F. "Baldy" Smith. I think it does the reader a disservice to compress a full campaign name such as Siege of Petersburg (or the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign) down to a link siege. You should consider using the Further templates in these sections.

The section War by attrition is rather duplicative of material in the Overland campaign section and could be shortened. The final paragraph does not belong in that section.

One of the most common and controversial discussions of Grant involves alcoholism. Did he drink during the war? Were any of his battles affected by this? The War Department sent people to monitor his behavior. All of these would be good topics to include in the article.

Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant GA Review
Hello. I have been trimming down the battle narrations as much as possible without losing meaning or accuracy. Should the Civil War be another separate section for Ulysses S. Grant with just a summary of his campaigns and battles? {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}


 * Well, that would be up to you. It would sort of make sense to balance the presidential separate article with the Civil War as a separate article. If you do that, you could in theory beef up descriptions of his antebellum career, both civilian and military, in the main article. If you choose not to separate it, I will give you some biased opinion. For the most part, the military section of this article was originally written by me. It had insufficient citations (because at the time I wrote it, numerous citations were not the norm in Wikipedia), but it was about the length that I thought was appropriate. You have since expanded it significantly. My primary concern at the moment is not this stylistic issue, but that the material you present is accurate and consistent with the battle articles. If you need any help with citations or finding references, let me know. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

All I really want is for all the USG articles to have GA status. I am not sure how many reviewers it takes to get a GA review. I have been researching with McFeely's book on Grant that won the Pulitzer Prize. In my opinion, it is the best book on Grant. McFeely has a way of explaining things to the reader and gives accurate descriptions. Until reading McFeely I did not know that Grant's life was spared at Fort Donelson when the Confederate sharp shooter declined to fire while he road away on his horse. I incorporated McFeely's book with your narrative. I consider all the Articles on USG to be kind of like a Civil War memorial or tribute. The other thing I learned in my research is that Grant actually was more an alchoholic then I previously thought, especially during the 1863 Vicksburg campaign. Do you feel the Article is good now for GA status? Is it still too long? The other issue is Anti-Semitism. I would have to address that issue. Summarizing the anti-semitism article might deflect the signifigance. I would prefer to keep the article intact. I would appreciate any input. Thanks. {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)}


 * The GA classification is less well-defined than FA, so I would assume you are pretty close depending on who does the evaluation -- the process is different between the two classifications and I think a single person is involved with GA, whereas FA requires you to respond formally to all of the reviewers. McFeely's biography is very good, although a lot of people think that Jean Smith's is as good or better. Brooks Simpson's is also excellent. On the alcoholism issue, I think you need to separate the concepts of medical alcoholism from abuse of alcohol. As far as I understand Grant's case -- and I have read a lot of literature about it -- he was clearly an alcoholic who could not handle himself after he started drinking. That was almost certainly the reason he was forced to resign from the antebellum Army. And there are a few cases in which he wandered off during quiet times of the war on a bender. However, I don't believe there is any documentation that indicated his drinking affected his performance as a general managing campaigns or battles. His drinking was obviously a source for rumors about him (Halleck et al) and for Stanton's and Lincoln's concern about him, which caused them to send Dana onto his staff as a spy and for Rawlins to watch him like a hawk.


 * By the way, in the following paragraph you are getting incorrect advice about EN dashes. They are used to show ranges like 1861–65, not compound words like two-year. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is looking much better but it still has some issues with DAB links, Alt text for images and references. I also think that there are too many images on the right and I recommend adjusting some of those as well. I also see a few places where you should change hyphens to endashes such as in the lead where it says two-year, patronage-based, etc. I think its getting close though and I think you have done a good job cleaning up a difficult article.--Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry DAB means disambiguous. --Kumioko (talk) 00:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Grant
I am attempting to make more clean ups to the article. I have attempted and outline. It would shorten the outline, however, it might take away some of the emotional appeal to the reader. I believe that it is good to have the Civil War segments as is without reducing the size anymore. The Civil War really is what made Grant who he was. Do you believe the article can get a GA with the current length? McFeely and Smith are both good sources along with Simpson. I also am reading the linked Civil War articles to get matched. I don't want to repeat what they are saying but it is important, like you say, to keep them in agreement with each other. I have gotten the Shiloh to go along with the Shiloh articles. Shiloh was tough because it involved more then just a seige. Also Vann Dorn and Forest constantly harrassed Grant. Maybe that can be put or reput in the article somehow in the Shiloh segment. Getting an FA would also be good. If you believe the Civil War section should be reduced to a summary, please let me know. I appreciate all your advise. {Cmguy777 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}


 * I agree that the Civil War was the most significant part of Grant's biography -- the only reason he ever became president -- so it is fine to keep it focused here instead of a sub-article. I think that Van Dorn is worth mentioning because he put a big roadblock into Grant's initial Vicksburg plans by destroying his supply base. Grant had to go through the political thought process of deciding how to react to that without appearing to be retreating and to avoid political conflicts with John McClernand. (Grant was remarkably adept at political positioning and in communicating with politicians. His only equal at that during the war was Robert E. Lee.) Forrest on the other hand was the nemesis of every Union general in the Western theater, so I'm not sure he needs special mention in a Grant biography. If you are interested in biographies, Joan Waugh has a new book about how Grant is remembered. During the 19th century, Grant was positively adored and was considered one of the three great men of American history, alongside Washington and Lincoln. That sort of legacy would be useful to explore in this article. My suggestion would be to get the GA before worrying about the FA. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(Request to review Vicksburg section.)


 * Look, I don't want to discourage you, but there are a lot of errors in that section, enough so that I don't feel like correcting them myself. (Normally, I feel free to go in and rip up problems with articles, but since you are trying to quarterback this through to GA status, you need to carry the ball yourself.) If you are concerned that there is too much detail in the Vicksburg campaign article for you to distill, how about reading the shorter description in Western Theater of the American Civil War? (That is one of my older articles and thus is terribly deficient in footnotes, but it gives a good outline of the campaigns.) I think the political controversies about McClernand are pretty significant for a Grant biography.


 * Two additional items that I think I have mentioned before: (1) In Wikipedia, we never use dates of the format July 4th; drop the "th". (2) When referring to other generals, either use only their names (William T. Sherman) or use their actual ranks (Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman), rather than using the honorific "General." Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here are some comments about your new Vicksburg text.
 * Grant did not capture Corinth as part of this campaign. Halleck did so in the Siege of Corinth in May.
 * The description in the Vicksburg campaign article about the two-pronged advance is a useful detail.
 * Grant did not retreat to Memphis. He specifically did not want to make it seem that he was retreating for political reasons. Although he continued to amass troops at Memphis (some of which were actually recruited by McClernand), he did not relocate his headquarters there, and he resumed command of the operations at Milliken's Bend. I'm not sure what the source about McClernand commanding a single regiment is, but the fact is that he ended up in corps command.
 * Sherman commanded the XV Corps, not an army.
 * It is Chickasaw Bayou, not Bluffs.
 * The "bitter rivalry" is an overstatement. In fact, Grant was skillful enough to keep McClernand in command of his leading corps during the campaign. He waited until the end of the campaign to find an excuse to relieve McClernand.
 * You make no mention of the Arkansas Post expedition, which was a direct affront to Grant's command authority.
 * One of the principal means in which Grant confused the enemy was Grierson's Raid.
 * The point about allowing the Confederates to concentrate against him is that he did not allow Joseph E. Johnston's force to link up with Pemberton's.
 * I do not think that the casualties for one of the battles in the campaign are very interesting for this article, but the Aftermath section of the campaign article gives the complete figures. Also, total casualties have to include the number of men who surrendered and it is useful to note that this was the second time that a major Confederate army surrendered, both times to Grant. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I got tired of leaving general hints, so I pulled the trigger on an edit of that section for you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me, good job. It looks like its still awaiting a good article reviewer though but know that you have made these changes I don't think there will be any problems.--Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * GA reviews frequently take some time, someone will take on the challenge. Perhaps Hlj will review it. Normally I would take it on but this article is extremely complex and I simply don't feel qualified on this one and quite frankly thats likely why its taking so long. If you leave it there though someone will eventually review it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Couple more minor things with Grant
I went and looked and some of the references are still a bit messy. Sometimes you spell out the entire ref such as in ref 1, sometimes they are abbreviated like 4 and they should be consistent. There are also still some other minor issues as shown below. I don't know that these would stand in theh way of the article getting to GA, but as long as you have the time I thought I would mention them. If it makes a difference I am about to undetake a similar struggle with the Douglas MacArthur article. I would ask you to review it as well but its in such a state at the moment theres not much point.
 * Ref 9. Need expansion0
 * Ref 18 & 19 are identical and should be combined
 * Ref 41, 42 & 46 are identical and should be combined
 * Ref 45, 48 & 49 are identical and should be combined
 * Ref 17, 51 & 76 are identical and should be combined
 * Ref 91, 97, 111, 116 & 117 needs to be expanded
 * Ref 118 & 119 are the same and should be combined--Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish I could tell you a good reviewer but unfortunately I can't think of one. I would leave a message on the WPBiography talk page and the Milhist talk age. Since he was in WWI you could also try leaving one on the WWI project and the MIlhist WWI centenial prject. In regards to expanding that just means turning a bare link like [www. whatever into a cite and when I mentioned combining I just meant that if you have 2 identical refs in the list then you should make it so that they are both referring to the same thing. I hope this helps. Other than that good job. --Kumioko (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals
The article Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have picked up this review after noticing that Wandalstoruing has abandoned their current GAN reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Philip the Arab and Christianity GAR
Hey, Cmguy. I've brought Philip the Arab and Christianity to GAR. The page is here. G.W. (Talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Info about Peer review
WP:WikiProject History/Review should explain the process. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

William S. Clark
Hi. Thanks again for your comments on William S. Clark. If I'm reading correctly (and I'm rather new to all this) I don't think a second is needed to assign it GA status if you, as the reviewer, feel it's good to go. WP:GAC has the directions under the "Pass" section if you'd like to promote it. If not, no worries. Cheers, Historical Perspective (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to pass the article, remove it from the nominations page as described in the instructions. Hekerui (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cmguy. Much obliged! Historical Perspective (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Canby Memorial Site Commemorative Plaque.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Canby Memorial Site Commemorative Plaque.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Canbys Cross Memorial Site Photo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Canbys Cross Memorial Site Photo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ulysses S. Grant
The article Ulysses S. Grant you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor quite a few major changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Ulysses S. Grant for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant
Can you put your copyediting on a hold for about an hour or so? I'm going to make a major edit, basically overhaulting the current citations and standardizing them. –MuZemike 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you can continue copyediting. Pay attention to the Harvard-style format of the inline citations, and try to remain consistent when you add new references in there. –MuZemike 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CONGRATS on winning GA!! -- you did the work and deserve the credit. Rjensen (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. —Eustress talk 23:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lost conclusion
Hiya. Take the first sentence for example: "Throughout the Lost series the producers and writers purposely kept viewers attention with excellent writing and subplots; that led to massive discussion by many viewers with various interpretations of the show." Commenting that the writing is "excellent" is a purely judgmental statement. The "massive discussion" and many of the other grand statements need to be cited by a reliable source. The conclusion was intended to be vague and listing any one interpretation as definitive or more important is not what Wikipedia is for. Moreover, I don't think two references to "eCanadaNow" count as verifiable, neutral information for an encyclopedia. See WP:OR/WP:NOT for the policy on including something like an "interpretation" - original thought. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article on Grant's Civil War Career?
Hi. Just wanted to flag you about a question that I thought you could help with. This has to do with Operation Brothers at War an initiative to get Civil War articles up to FA in time for the 150th. It's been suggested that a separate article be written for Grant's Civil War career. I think you were considering doing this...and given your past work, I think you'd be the guy to do it! You can check out the question here. Any thoughts would be welcome. Cheers! Historical Perspective (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sample USG Civil War segment summary
Thanks Hal. The following was a summary of Ulysses S. Grant's Civil War record to replace the one on USG article. This is done in order to put the information currently on USG Civil War segment on a separate article page. If there are errors in the summary, please let me know. It is important to be accurate. I have been using Smith and McFeely as sources. {Cmguy777 (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Oh, so you mean this is the text that will remain in the top level article after the military details are moved into a separate article? If that is the case, sorry, I misinterpreted your request. Let me give you some advice based on my work on hundreds of these articles. It is much more efficient and accurate to distill detailed text and citations into a summary rather than to create a summary from scratch using other references. That is the way I do it on a campaign article -- I write all of the battle articles in detail (perhaps 10-20 paragraphs each) and then chop each of those descriptions into three or four paragraphs by omitting unimportant details, but being careful to retain the applicable citations. But anyway, here are comments regarding the accuracy of the text:
 * The dates about Fort Sumter are wrong.
 * Belmont is considered inconclusive -- read the article.
 * His next two battles were up the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, not down the Mississippi.
 * Floyd was in command at Fort Donelson and his breakout attempt led by Pillow on the 15th followed the naval bombardment on the 14th; the way you have written it makes me think Grant attacked first on land.
 * The primary objective of Shiloh was to destroy Grant's army before he could be reinforced by Buell. The description "9 miles south at Pittsburg landing" doesn't say south of what. Rather than saying that on the second day the Confederate Army was "forced to retreat," you should say that Grant and Buell counterattacked to accomplish the same. If a superlative is needed, Shiloh was the costliest battle in American history up to that time, not just in the war. (The casualties of all previous American wars were lower than at Shiloh.)
 * You have omitted the aftermath of Shiloh, arguably the most important consequences in Grant's career: public outcry, subordinate role to Halleck for the siege of Corinth, thoughts of resignation.
 * I would avoid loaded words such as "conquest." Grant was not repulsed by Forrest and Van Dorn -- they interfered with his supply lines. Your description of Vicksburg overemphasizes the Navy. I suggest that you look at the lead/summary section of Vicksburg Campaign for a brief description. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but you are not doing very accurate work. Here are comments on your recent edits.

Fort Sumter surrendered early on the morning of April 14.

At Cairo, the Ohio River merges with the Mississippi.

The battle of Belmont did not involve a "Fort Belmont." Saying that Grant had to retreat to Paducah can be misinterpreted -- he set out on a raid from Paducah and then returned there.

Fort Henry actually surrendered to the Navy and Grant's infantry was not used. The fall of Fort Henry opened up the Tennessee River as far as northern Alabama, not "the Union war effort."

Floyd's attack on February 15 was not a counterattack because Grant had not attacked him previously -- it was an attack to open up an escape corridor to Nashville before Grant could attack.

The assertion that Grant was assumed to be drunk should be reworded to indicate rumors spread about this.

Halleck's position as general in chief was of the Union Army, not the Armed Forces (an expression that includes the Navy).

You did not correct the assertion about Shiloh being the costliest battle.

The paragraph about the Vicksburg campaign, arguably Grant's most important, is still not very good. As I said, even the lead section of the Vicksburg campaign article is superior to this. If the entire Vicksburg campaign gets a paragraph, Belmont should rate about a sentence.

Grant's elevation to command in the West was prompted by Rosecrans's defeat at Chickamauga and the siege at Chattanooga, but you make it seem as if they were only coincidentally related. Saying that it occurred in 1863 is unhelpfully nonspecific. The lead section of the Chattanooga Campaign article is a better summary than this one.

By the way, search through your text for semicolons. Virtually all of them are misused and should be replaced by commas. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll look it over Monday. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My comments will start after Shiloh.

It is arguable whether Grant's assignment from Halleck was punishment. Although Grant was demoralized by the second-in-command status, Halleck did not portray it as punishment and some historians have argued that it was appropriate. The sentence about the combined casualties would appear more logically at the beginning of the post-Shiloh paragraph. The sentence about moving southward to Vicksburg is confusing prior to the paragraphs about Vicksburg.

I don't think it is useful to relate the two arcane campaign names for Vicksburg (which you show in bold). You have not mentioned Sherman's failed attacks at Chickasaw Bayou or the political maneuvering against John A. McClernand, both of which are rather relevant for a Grant biography. It is worth mentioning that the siege of Vicksburg started with two unsuccessful frontal assaults (May 19 and May 22). After these failed, Grant ordered the siege, which continued for 40 days. Two aspects of the aftermath: this was the second Confederate army that surrendered to Grant, and, in conjunction with the Union victory at Gettysburg, Vicksburg is often considered the turning point of the war.

At Chattanooga, the cracker line was not primarily a railroad line. Hooker did not "take over" Lookout Mountain -- he captured it in battle. (I'm going to assume you will add links to appropriate battle articles when you finish the text.) Grant's reaction of fury to the advance on Missionary Ridge was only in the initial moments. He obviously was not furious after the Ridge was successfully taken.

Your description of lieutenant general is confusing. Washington had the full rank. Scott was a brevet Lt. Gen. Dates for those promotions are not relevant.

What do you mean it was an "undisclosed location" for the meeting with Lincoln? They met in Washington. I would say economic rather than socioeconomic infrastructures. Lee's army was the Army of Northern Virginia. The Army of the Potomac was led by George G. Meade, whom Grant supervised by co-locating his headquarters. Hancock led the II Corps. Fighting a war of attrition was not one of Grant's stated goals, although it turned out to be one of the results of the campaign. Grant hoped to engage and defeat Lee's army, not simply to wear it down. It was only because Lee was too expert at countering Grant's blows that Grant had to fight inconclusive battles and then move around Lee's flank each time.

You really employ hyperbole in the Spotsylvania Court House paragraph. I doubt that it's necessary to go into a lot of detail of each of the battles of the Overland campaign. (It is unfortunate that I cannot simply point you to the Overland campaign article for better overview material, but improving that article is on my to-do list. It is obviously pretty sketchy currently. You might want to look at my article Eastern Theater of the American Civil War for a reasonable level of summation of the campaign. The background section of Siege of Petersburg also is a good summary.) In the battle of North Anna, the interesting fact for a Grant biography is that Robert E. Lee had the opportunity to trap portions of the Army of the Potomac and defeat them in detail, but he was not able to implement his plan due to illness.

Sherman's Atlanta campaign could hardly be called a futile military game of the attack and retreat. Sherman advanced steadily on Atlanta, outmaneuvering Joseph E. Johnston. He had to overcome significant geographic obstacles as well as a determined enemy in defensive positions. About the only problem with his advance was it was going a bit more slowly than the northern public would have liked.

I do not think that Lee, trying to determine where the Army of the Potomac was going after Cold Harbor, had an immediate expectation that Grant would [be]siege Richmond.

Petersburg was the junction of five railroads, it did not have five railroad junctions.

PGT Beauregard, not PTG. Smith's attack against Petersburg began on June 15, but he suspended it that evening and did not complete his effort until June 16. Petersburg eventually fell on April 2, 1865.

I am sorry to say that I will be retiring from this review role. It is really rather time-consuming for me to provide detailed comments for someone else's work. I enjoy writing original things for Wikipedia, not so much helping other people with their writing. Good luck with your efforts. You really need to keep your citations up with your sample text or you will be completely lost. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hal. I have completed the USG Civil War summary with citations, links, and segment titles.  A title is needed for the separate article on Grant's Civil War Carreer.  Do you have any suggestions before making the web page.
 * Some titles I have come up with are:
 * American Civil War Career of Ulysses S. Grant
 * Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War.
 * American Civil War Battles of Ulysses S. Grant
 * {Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}

I think the second is preferable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I can use the second title.  That sounds good.  In the main USG article I am putting in his military controversies such as "drunkeness" and "anti-semitism" in the battle segments.  That should reduce the size of the USG main article.  I put criticism for him being a "butcher" in a Northern resentment segment.  Is it best to have just have USG Civil War article or an article on his entire military career? {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)}

I think the separate focus on the Civil War is appropriate. His antebellum service was not lengthy or significant, other than to introduce the concept of his early failures in life (military and civilian), contrasted against his later successes. His postbellum military service was more politically oriented than military. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hal. I apoligize if I have interfered in any way with your writing in the USG bio article.  My only goal is get USG bio to GA status.  Hartfelt has really made the article good with his edits.  I incorporated the military critisism in the USG bio article rather then a separate segment.  I also added detail about North Ana and how Lee and other Confederate officers were either sick or injured during this time.  I hope that the article has retained your original intent. Respectfully. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}

Although I think my original work on this article had a good balance of encyclopedic brevity versus detail, it was done in the early days of Wikipedia when citations were not considered so important, so I did not attempt to seize any control of it after you started making large changes. (My modus operandi in Wikipedia is to create quality articles without running into a lot of controversy with other editors.) I think that Hartfelt is a very good writer who knows Grant well and has a good knowledge of the reliable sources, so his sweep through your work will be a helpful addition. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Grant overhaul
Cmguy777: Thank you for your message. I know you have knocked yourself out on the Grant page and have nothing but good intentions. I'm not sure, however, that the overhaul was a good idea -- to replace so much developed material all at once seems to rather invite problems. I don't know how much more I will try to contribute, but I have tried to help with sections involving the Tennessee River campaigns. Hartfelt (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi
 Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм &#124;  Spare your time?  10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson and slavery
You asked me to contribute to the article; I did by pointing the errors so that you might correct them. That's called editing, and I did a lot on your article. Notice I put clear examples & URL's to make it clear and specific. And what is troubling is you don't want to understand the main problems. Others have already pointed to writing things not in sources, poor sources, 100's of edits. Please use preview, it's so confusing when you make so many edits that nobody can follow a page. This is a problem. Now, you said you've studied history, then you're capable of doing better.

And I know you can because you've done some good work as well. I notice you won an award on Grant. You've also put some excellent original sources with URL's (very helpful to me and others) like the Congress Journals etc, and given constant attention to prevent vandalism etc. If you work on the advice editors gave you, your work will improve much. It's the quality, not the quantity that counts here. Ebanony (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am just answering the message you sent me. Thanks for you compliment.  As I mentioned before this was the first article I did for Wikipedia in 2008.  I did a chronological article since Jefferson out of all the Founding Patriots was heavily embedded with slavery.  I wanted to link Jefferson with the past, his present, and the nation's history up to the American Civil War.  I have made changes to the article to make it neutral, however, if there are any other neutrality issues please let me know.  There are some conservative historians who simply bipass Jefferson owning slaves.  It would be good to have the neutrality cite removed, in my opinion, but you can keep it there until you believe the article has improved.  The other issue is that do you believe the article itself is salvageable?

I've already explained the reasons for the npov on the talk page. What is it you don't understand? Tell me so I can explain it to you. Oh, and please put the discussion here or on that tlak page. Putting them on my talk page isn't helping; here or on the article's talk page right next to where the conversation is, not in a new subtitle. Ebanony (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Washinton and slavery
After posting the last comment, I noticed more problems on your site Washington and slavery. I suggest you take seriously Wikipedia's position on copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems Cutting and pasting text from other webpages is not allowed. Other than a direct quote "" or a paraphrase, you cannot engage in that practice because that violates fair use, since they're copyrighted. Please address the problems in that article. How many people have cited you for this problem? WIth all due respect, do you understand why copying text from other sources is a copyright problem? I'm warning you about this problem again. Ebanony (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I can check out the article. I did not start that article, just contributed. I have cited all the sources and am not claiming any credit for their writings.  I understand that it is not good enough to just change a few words around.  That is what I mean by a sloppy edit.  There is an art to summarizing source material.  I believe I am getting better at that. However, I can see what can be done to improve George Washington and slavery in terms of copyright issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your hundreds of edits make it difficult to know which sections you worked on. Introduction, Emancipation plan, Lafayette letter, Slave families, Blacksmith's shop, Changes to grain farming, Trades and skills, Food and holidays, Corporal punishment, Distillery and gristmill. Did you contribute to these?


 * 2nd look up paraphrasing and summarising http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/paraphrase.pdf

You need to understand the difference. Apart from that, you need to stopy copying text. Even if you cite a source, that is still not allowed. Repeat that. No copying text. You've been cited by what, 4 or 5 editors for copyright? Seems you're close to getting banned from Wikipedia. Ebanony (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason, to be honest, I feel you are personally attacking me. I have made good efforts in making good articles.  You seem to be the only one who attacks me.  I am not sure what your real agenda is on Wikipedia.  You make good comments, however, personal attacks should not be done in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is one problem, and if you address the problems I pointed out on the talk page a few minutes ago, then we can discuss removing the dispute. I see you tried to make improvements, and that's good, but that's not enough; I tried to encourage you to do more. I'm asking you again.

Copyright infringement is another problem. You removed my warning to you. I'm not attacking you; I'm trying to warn you here. I'm worried they might ban you if they see how extensive your copyright and plagarism is.

I did that to give you a chance to address the 10 obvious examples in this article alone I'm pretty sure you made. I'm reiterating what 4 or 5 other editors have told you: copyright is not allowed. Remove the copyright problems you cut and pasted from Mt Vernon and other sites. You copied verbatim text in many places. About half the paragraphs in that article have this problem. Ebanony (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Jefferson and slavery has more than 20 different places with verbatim copy and paste from the sources, including your timelines, introduction, views on slavery, Revolutionary period, Grégoire's book, African American enslavement etc - literally half or more of the artocle has this problem (just like the Washington article). Please remove the violations. I gave you several warnings on the Washington and slavery page; you ignored them. Ebanony (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted an example of the copyright problem for you to see. I think this is your edit on 30 September 2009, but I'mnot certain. I suggest you remove the offending text from the article's main page of the Jefferson and slavery article, as well as the others I warned you about here (you deleted my earlier messages). Some of the other edits I know you did. Ebanony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You [Ebanony] deleted my edits on your talk page and one of your edits on this article was undone. I am going through the article to reword any edits with alleged copyright violations. I have edited the GW and slavery page. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I did not delete anything on my talk page. I moved them to the other talk page where there was the already started relevant discussion (the talk pages of the articles GW & slavery & TJ & slavery); the other stuff I posted right here on your talk page. The NPOV & copyright warnings you deleted. I noticed just now you restored them. That's what happened. Second, plagairism is not good. Do you know how seriously bad those articles look? Did you copy that work and paste it? Ebanony (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I made significant changes to both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson articles. As I mentioned before you had made an edit that was undone. The article looks good, in my opinion. I prefer constructive criticism over blatant accusations or insults. You mentioned you are not attacking me [Ebanony], then why do you ignore the changes I have made to the articles? I have made every effort to rewrite without bias and to summarize accurately from the cited sources. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear. I did move the comments to put them in one location; but it was you, according to the log, who deleted all the comments here 2 days ago and just restored them a few hours ago. Now, to be fair, I know you've made some edits, and I said so in my earlier comment, and I appreciate you're trying to do some changes. You've been responsive in that. But you've only dealt with calling Jefferson an abolitionist & some minor things, and those were the least of the problems. I didn't put NPOV because of one word I could edit myself. Please look at the talk pages of these articles: 1) there's examples of your work on talk pages that include claims not based on sources (some is egregious like claiming Jefferson tried to abolish slavery); 2) there's numerous examples of plagiarised work copied from other websites & books, and apparently by you.


 * It's easy to confuse the NPOV & plagiarism, but because you've written the articles using Twohig & Wiencek (& maybe one more) thesis & supporting examples, as the basis of the article, it means you can't just tweak a few words. Besides plagiarism, that's undue weight of minority pov's presented as if they were the consensus (& you ignore others who disagree with those pov's). Basically your argument is 'Jefferson was always fighting against slavery, and these examples prove it' & 'Washington changed his views over time to oppose slavery & become an abolitionist, and these examples prove it'. Only so many historians argue those particular pov's, and you made those select arguments the premise on which to write the articles, and even gone beyond their claims. So, no, contrary to your claim, these aren't blanket accusations or insults. Dispute the evidence, it's on the talk pages. Show me where I'm mistaken and I'll retract it.


 * When you address these problems, I'll be more than happy to talk about removing the NPOV claim, which I said earlier. I asked you to fix this for several days, and put many examples up to show you what needed to be done on the NPOV. Then I also warned you about plagiarism/copyright by posting an example of the one you took from LIFE magazine (that was after someone else had to remove a different plagiarised source you called "sloppy"). You can still fix the plagiarism & NPOV. What you're not clear about, please ask. Ebanony (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop posting to my talk page until the issue is resolved. You have given enough information and in my opinion the best thing is start from scrath and make your own article on Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * note: No problem. I'm just moving this here so the conversation is in one place. Ebanony (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

George Washington and slavery
This article has come due for administrative closure today. As it has not been edited to address the copyright problems in the time since you were notified of their existence, I have now blanked the article as per procedure at Copyright problems. A temporary space is linked from the article's face in which you may propose a rewrite if you choose. Please make sure that you write all content in your words, except as you utilize brief and clearly marked quotations. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". If you do choose to propose a rewrite, please be careful with any other sources you may have used in the article, if you have also followed these too closely.

The article will be revisited in another week at which time, if no usable rewrite has been proposed, it will probably be truncated or restored to an earlier version before the introduction of problematic text. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant GAN
I think, with all the work that has been done on Ulysses S. Grant since its last failed GAN, it is safe to say that another GAN will result in the article being promoted. Do you think it's ready for another GAN? The Utahraptor Talk to me/Contributions 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Grant Postage stamps
Hi Cmguy777, I am glad that the addition of the Grant on US Postage section is welcomed. Perhaps three stamps is the practical limit. I have no problem with that. Thank you for taking the time to rearrange the stamps and putting the other on the talk page. Too often users  'on a mission to clean up'  just delete what they feel is not appropriate with no explanation or note of courtesy. Again, thank you for taking the time to rearrange the section. All the best. -- GWillHickers (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Lemen
In case you were wondering, I had to remove all references to Lemen as per Wikipedia's V policy. There is no evidence to support the claims; there was no compact.Ebanony (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have serious concerns about some of the edits you made to this article:
 * 1) you added a lot of information that was not directly relevant to Jefferson - see WP:RSUW
 * 2) some of the claims you added have no historiacal background (Lemen) - see V
 * 3) Recently restoring some information I had removed - see WP:NPOV

Let me try to explain: every edit you make must conform to Wikipedia's rules; the overwhelming number of edits I made was due to violations of it. I want to strongly caution you from posting that material again. I'd like to avoid contacting administration. The Lemen stuff alone has several egregious violations.Ebanony (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your new edit, and have no problem with it. You understand the problem now, so I see reason for any problem. Let's just be careful what we post.Ebanony (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

TJ & slavery

 * You had a good idea to have the article proofread. Also, I've reduced it in size to remove a lot of unecessary details (but citations mostly kept). The 1783 & Kosciuszko parts I had to delete since they do not seem relevant (see talk page). I wanted to ask your help in getting some slave pictures (those not in coyright like see [] since bigger ones exist). There's a bit of research on slave diet, daily life & the things TJ did with them. If we stick to estabished fact & avoid speculation (some historians do this too much), then can avoid npov. Please do not take my coment on Lemen or some of the deletions personally; they're not meant to discourage you, just to make improvements.Ebanony (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The more on slavery conditions, the better for the article. I am not sure how to get slave photos, unless there are Jefferson slave photos possibly taken in the mid 19th century. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and if you look at this link, you'll see this is one of them: Isaac Jefferson [] There's also a larger version of it out there, and it's out of copyright. Also, this is one of the best articles I've seen on slave diet. Let me just add, that's why I've been working on this article. Instead of arguing what he maybe thought about slavery, it's less controversial and better to just say what he did & show how the slaves lived. That's why the old article had so many problems. Now, a lot of the work you did has been very helpful in that, and I've kept some of it; the main article needs to resemble more the recent work. [] You're welcome to use it if you like.Ebanony (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The main article's slavery part has been redone to match the recent work to the TJ & slavery article. Have a look. A lot of your work is there, and some of it was quite useful.Ebanony (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The main article Thomas Jefferson and slavery is looking good. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to work on TJ & slavery, why not fix up the main TJ page; the section on slavery on that page is pretty bad. Take a look. Any suggestions?　[]Ebanony (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. That would be good.  The section in the main page with the article should match.  More could be added in the slave life section and possibly adding segment titles could help with navigation in the TJ and slavery article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, it should match but in less detail because the space is small.The whole section should be redone - a complete rewrite. So I'd like to work with you to do it, and I'm all ears as to your opinion on doing it.Ebanony (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Winnie"

 * Thanks for that appreciative note, Pal. I am reading Russell's bio and making concurrent contribs. as I go. I will try not to muck things up too badly. This is my fourth president since i have joined WP and I am enjoying it. I see you have been working real hard on WGH and i congratulate you on that. Keep in touch. Carmarg4 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your note. I will probably finish Russell in a week or so (it's a slow process for me). You have done the heavy lifting here Pal, not me. Merry Christmas ! Carmarg4 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jefferson statue
Here, use this.

Merry Christmas


The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

-- The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 02:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

American Civil War anniversary section
Hey, I responded on the talk page about the anniversary section of American Civil War. I personally don't think it works as a section, but it could be made into a standalone article. -LtNOWIS (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Garfield
Hey, Pal. Nice to see you have done some work on Garfield. I just started Peskin's biography and will be camping out here for a while. I think I'm going to really like this President...he was a great writer from what I've seen so far. I thought I'd ask if you know anyone we can get to look at Garfield's layout - got a couple big gaps - and I don't know how to manage pic file placements etc. I am quite envious of your "cleanup" barn star - - goodness knows you have earned it! Hang in there. Go Packers! Carmarg4 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting "Gar" to GA!! Carmarg4 (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Forbes review
...comments? ~B F izz 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote needed
Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cmguy777. Thanks for your prompt vote! I was hoping you could scale down your explanations in the voting section, and perhaps move some of it to a new or other section so we can keep the voting record simple. You could put a 'see my reasoning' link next to your vote. Just a note on my own behalf. I don't want to remove all references about Hemings, but as it is, the entire topic has gotten more attention than the DOI, 'Member of Congress', 'Secretary of State', War of 1812, etc, etc.  Gwillhickers (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Monticello Community
Since you were interested in how the Monticello Association was dealing with the Hemings descendants, I thought you might like to know that some of its members reached out to them, including one who had earlier opposed their membership, but carefully read the facts and became convinced. Three people, one from Martha Wayles' descendants and two from Hemings' (one white and one black), have gotten together to organize new renunions at Monticello, and now created the Monticello Community - open to descendants of all the people who lived there. In late 2010, they were honored for their work in family and racial healing with the Common Ground Award, by the Search for Common Ground organization. You can see their website: "The Monticello Community", Official Site. A good story.Parkwells (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Noticeboard Jefferson article
Pardon my edit, but I must inform you that I had to refer an editor to the noticeboard for his fringe theories (not you). Your conduct is fine, but since you were involved in the dispute, I cited your discussion & warnings to him on this matter as well as those of other editors. You can see it here, and if I misquoted/inaccurately posted something involving you, then please say so:  Ebanony Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to comment on that page, just to make known any errors I might have made involving your words/edits; I don't want this misconstrued into WP:CANVAS, which it is not. (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Progress in Mid-March
Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Longbranch meeting
Any idea when this meeting took place? Carmarg4 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for your steady support, many contributions, and adding knowledge for getting the full story told.Parkwells (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding James A. Garfield
Although turning down a copyedit request feels a little like shirking my duty as a member of the Guild, I'm going to be busy in real life over the next month and a half. I doubt I'll have time to copyedit an article that long. If it turns out that I have more spare time than I expect, I may look it over, but I'd advise you to request help elsewhere. I wish you good luck with the review, though. A. Parrot (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI...I worked on the queries in the GA review. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers
You are invited to join the discussion at Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. Coemgenus 15:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC) (Using )

Chester Arthur
I'm reading the Reeves book, myself, and will read Karabell next. I was actually planning on giving it a complete re-write. There's not much there to build on. --Coemgenus 02:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been drafting it in userspace. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're still adding to the article. I mean, you're free to do so, of course, but I thought we were going to wait for my re-write and then collaborate from there.  I understand you're anxious to improve this thing, which is good, but it's been lousy for ten years.  Why not wait a couple weeks and do it right?  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about the block quotes. They were terrible.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, no need to revert. It's fine as is.  --Coemgenus (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a look at it when I get that far. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I pasted the Presidency section from your sandbox into mine and will work from that starting point. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's proceeding apace. In the meantime, have you considered devoting some effort to Star route scandal?  You seem to be the expert on the subject around here and could probably add a lot to the article.  --Coemgenus (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of a notice. I've never used one before, and it's kind of redundant, isn't it? The nature of Wikipedia is that massive changes might happen at any time.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's done. I'd like to do a peer review next. I'd be glad to invite your comments on it when it gets started. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents
Greetings, It was recently suggested that WikiProject US Presidents might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Leonidas D. Dyer
Thanks for inviting my collaboration on your article. Good to hear from you! Parkwells (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lynching (this was the reference) : The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was first introduced to United States Congress in 1918 by Republican Congressman Leonidas C. Dyer of Missouri. The bill was passed by the United States House of Representatives in 1922 and in the same year given a favorable report by the United States Senate Committee. Passage was blocked by white Democratic senators from the Solid South, the only representatives elected since southern states disfranchised African Americans at the turn of the century. The Dyer Bill influenced later anti-lynching legislation, including the Costigan-Wagner Bill.


 * The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill as it appeared in 1922 stated: "To assure to persons within the jurisdiction of every State the equal protection of the laws, and to punish the crime of lynching.... Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the phrase 'mob or riotous assemblage,' when used in this act, shall mean an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting in concert for the purpose of depriving any person of his life without authority of law as a punishment for or to prevent the commission of some actual or supposed public offense." Parkwells (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Star routes
Nice work. Looking forward to the finished product. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Chester Arthur GA
I'm pretty sure the GA review is supposed to be done by someone unconnected with the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought you would have raised any concerns at peer review. I'll get the GA re-set.  --Coemgenus (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I relisted it and got an admin to delete the old GAR page. It's on the list.  Someone will get to it when they get to it.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it seems to have been sorted out with some help from the GA bot operator and an admin. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonidas C. Dyer
Just wanted you to know I nominated it for a DYK - set the date for 7/31 and noted we were still working on it. Parkwells (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we just have to remember next time to nominate such an expansion earlier. You've done a great job on it.Parkwells (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
Glad to see you're working on this too, now. If you can do anything about those missing citations in the "Text" section, I'd appreciate it. I don't have time to gather sources this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Help
I have just been doing some edits to images at James Buchanan. My last edit was an error and needs to be undone. I am unable to undo it. I would be grateful (and others too) if you could. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think things are back to normal now. For a while I was getting a very odd screen at wikipedia, like nothing I had seen before, and I thought perhaps my edit had caused it.Hoppyh (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
An editor has moved most of the historiography content on the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" to a new article, Debate about paternity of Sally Hemings' children, but it has been recommended for speedy deletion as duplicating material in the Jefferson DNA data article and not having included the Talk page discussions on this topic.Parkwells (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read Osofsky
And Dr. Jensen is right. Donald can't be read correctly without the critique Osofsky provides. Instead of my typing this twice, visit his talkpage here and read what I have to say after my first read through I'm going to scan this in and create a PDF for you to read. I'll send a touchbase email which you can respond to if you want the copy emailed to you. I'm going to pursue the book I mentioned on his talk tomorrow. I'll be at the library much of the week for other reasons anyway. This took me all of five minutes to get, so it's zero trouble on my part. BusterD (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:President Ulysses S. Grant seated Brady.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:President Ulysses S. Grant seated Brady.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mlpearc  powwow  05:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant
Hello Hlj. Would you Hlj, be interested in editing the Ulysses S. Grant article for a rewrite from the Vicksburg Campaign through Appomattox? One contributor in the talk page mentioned a rewrite was needed. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Howdy. Probably not, sorry. I usually concentrate non-trivial work only on the articles I've written myself. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Ulysses S. Grant, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
You do realise that this article is in the middle of a GA Review, right? Your edits should be proposed on talk before being placed in the article. Also, your refs are in a poor format that is at odds with what's going on in the article. Alarbus (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I do realize that AH article is in good article review. The edits I made came with sources and I attempted to follow the way the sources and references were sourced and referenced in the article.  I am not sure if all the references in the article, including mine, are in complete compliance with any arbitrary standards.  I gave the reference and a reference link in the reference.  I did discuss in the discussion page my concerns with the article.  Other editors joined the discussion.  There were three areas of concern; Mien Kampf; The Night of the Long Knives; and Hitler being refered to as Dictator of Nazi Germany.  The sources I gave are valid, in my opinion.  My edits were only to improve the article's context in terms of the brutality of Hitler's dictatorship and rule. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw, after I posted this, that you had been on the GA Review page. During the review it would be more courteous to get agreement to change the article prior to making changes. and  your ref format was fixed to work with the better format that the article uses. As far as 'brutality' and 'dictatorship' I think that's pretty well understood and stated in the article ;) Alarbus (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am for editor consensus, however, I do not believe that editors are required, unless voluntarily agreed, to get permission from other editors to make any edits. Ownership of the article is forbidden in Wikipedia policy. I believe I was being courteous by discussing my concerns with other editors. As far as the brutality of Hitler, in the Mein Kampf section, there is currently no mention of Hitler's violent phrasings in the book or his anti-semitic ideology, only that the book sold millions of copies.

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Hamilton Fish Brady.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hamilton Fish Brady.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

File:U. S. Senator Charles Sumner.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:U. S. Senator Charles Sumner.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Since it appears we finally have agreed to a shorter summary of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, there are suggestions that the Slavery section should also be summarized more, as it now has a well-developed main article (due to your good work). Just wanted to let you know, in case you'd like work with StudyHard, a new editor, who may try to work on the summary. At this point I think it could be shortened; it got very loaded with many quotes. Also, I am trying to keep the position of the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" next to that of "Marriage and family" in the TJ article, since the academic consensus accepts that as a widower, he had a long-term relationship with Hemings and more children who survived with her than by his wife.Parkwells (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Parkwells. I believe the summary could be one paragraph, however, I believe his freeing of certain slave "relatives" needs to be in the lead section. He really only freed relatives of Hemings including her children.  I have noticed there are many quotations in the actual article.  Maybe these can be summarized into paragraph narration. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Cmguy, the discussion got confusing. We are trying to decide where to place "Marriage and family" and "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" sections on the Thomas Jefferson page. If interested please join us on the talk page to help resolve the issue.  See section labeled "Call for opinion on placement" of these sections near the bottom. Parkwells (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Amos T. Akerman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Whiskey Ring 02.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whiskey Ring 02.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 01:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Amos T. Akerman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to George H. Williams


 * Andrew Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Benjamin Butler

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Princeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Charles Sumner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alexander Stewart and Tenure of Office Act (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * James Madison (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Britain and Robert Smith


 * Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Confederate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hayes
You added material to the Rutherford Hayes article that is cited to "Hoogenboom (1988)", but the only Hoogenboom work in the notes was written in 1995. To which work are you referring? --Coemgenus (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ari Hoogenboom (1988), The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes, Published by the University Press of Kansas Cmguy777 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to add that, that's cool with me, but now we'll have two Hoogenboom books, which means you'll have to change all the old "Hoogenboom" cites to "Hoogenboom 1995". Do you want me to just find it in the 1995 book, I will.  It might save some boring copyediting.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed the issue. I added the Hoogenboom (1988) book and referenced as "hoog1988". I believe the book is really detailed and focuses primarily on Hayes' Presidency.  Hoogenboom, in my opinion, is a real good author and understandable.  Any book by Hoogenboom would be good. Let me know if that is alright with you, Coemgenus. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but now we have two short cites that refer to two different books by the same name, even if the links are different. They all have to have the year, or else people can't tell which is which.  You're right that Hoogenboom is good, he's the leading living authority on Hayes.  The reason I didn't use the 1988 book is that nearly everything in it is in the larger biography published in 1995.  As I said, I'd be glad to source it to the 1995 book if you want, but otherwise all of the cites to the two books must be changed.  --Coemgenus (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Why not put "(1988)" after the Hoogenboom (1988) references?  That would distinguish the two books in the references.  However, if you, Coemgenus, can find the same information in the Hoogenboom (1995) book, that is fine. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I found the alternate sourcing. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright. I can use the Hoogenboom (1988) source for the Hamilton Fish article. I prefer to put the date in sources for the reader.  I am not sure why the Hoogenboom (1988) source is excluded due to non date reference preference in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good edit, Coemgenus. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited James Madison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Erskine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Thanks for having the article protected, and your stamina. Parkwells (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Orlady put up the protection, I believe, to stop TheDarkOneLives abusive editorializing. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break

 * Hello Parkwells. Your work is good and agenda free. TheDarkOneLives, in my opinion, has attempted to create dissention among other editors, for any unknown reasons. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cmguy. You have tried to represent current scholarship and are to be commended. These are people who grab onto every exception and want to live in the past. I may re-enter the discussion but have not decided. Look forward to working on other articles with you.Parkwells (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe certain editors, Brad, TheDarkOneLives, and Gwillhickers have assumed ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article. Possibly only administrators can enforce Wikipedia policy that bans ownership of articles. I really believe politics has entered the discussion of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson making any rational discussion on the subject extremely difficult or impossible. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, very political. Today Brad jumped all over me for a suggested Lede statement that was largely by DarkOneLives, and about which he'd made no comment before. Too negative to do this. There is other work to be done.Parkwells (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way to resolve this dilemna is to allow an administrator to step in and take over the Thomas Jefferson article. Brad, TheDarkOneLives, and Gwillhickers have taken over the article and created a "hornets nest" in the discussion page. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

File:U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish Brady .jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:U.S. Secretary of State Hamilton Fish Brady .jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You've earned a real one
Thanks Shearonink. Apparently politics can get involved in a Wikipedia article in terms of Jeffersonian protectionism. I am not sure how the wikipedia policy of banning ownership of articles is enforced. Apparently editors can gang up on, haze, or target other editors in the talk page in order to bully their opinions into the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:W. W. Belknap Brady-Handy.jpg
... has been undeleted, after your comments at the help desk. Regards, BencherliteTalk 12:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks Bencherlite! Cmguy777 (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Trader post scandal (1876) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to John Rawlins, American Indians, Fort Lincoln and Prestige

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. When you recently edited George S. Boutwell, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Republican Party and Whig Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Slavery in the US c. 1800
Hi! I'm commenting here on your talk page instead of the Jefferson talk page because I sincerely wish to see that discussion end. You may want to check your numbers wrt to slave-owners and slaves. This paragraph from a reputable site shows a clear picture of the "slave society" of the time, and of how many whites owned slaves.
 * The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Practically speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many resented the wealth and power of the large slaveholders, they aspired to own slaves themselves and to join the priviledged ranks. In addition, slavery gave the farmers a group of people to feel superior to. They may have been poor, but they were not slaves, and they were not black. They gained a sense of power simply by being white.

Also, "Slave owners controlled politics and economics, though about 70% of Southern whites owned no slaves and usually were engaged in subsistence agriculture," from Origins of the American Civil War. As for millions of slaves--where did you get that? Maybe you're mixing up Civil War times with the early Republic. Here's a link. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The site sourced in the Jefferson article talk page clearly states that in 1810 there were 1,000,000 slaves in the U.S. A third of the persons were slaves in the South overall, however, in some areas of Georgia and South Carolina low countries slaves out numbered whites. Slavery was totally accepted by most Southerners and any slave owner who freed slaves would be ostracized by Southern society. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that justify this hyperbole: There were millions of slaves during Jefferson's times.? Imho, there's enough bickering on that talk page we should be careful not to overstate the case. Yopienso (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There were over a million slaves during Jefferson's times in the U.S. My point was that the slave population had reached over a million in 1810. Slavery was an imbedded institution during Jefferson's times. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Progress on that article has been dogged by forceful personalities. It seems to me you are adding to the problem rather than minimizing it.
 * These two statements of yours are not factual:
 * There were millions of slaves during Jefferson's times.
 * True most white males were small farmers who owned one or two slaves.
 * Yet, instead of simply saying, "Whoops, I goofed," you make illogical defenses here and on the talk pages. (How does this support either statement? "This source states slaves outnubmered whites 2 to 1 in South Carolina and Georgia low coutries.") I commented on the talk page, "Of course Jefferson lived in a slave society!" Why do you tell me, "Slavery was an imbedded institution during Jefferson's times."? I know that and edited the article to keep it clear.
 * Just having the humility to admit to making a mistake would go a long way toward improving the editing environment. I hear you shouting, "Gwhillikers is wrong, wrong, wrong! I'm right, right, right!" Do you see how the edits you've made in the past hour give me that impression? Please consider dropping the present issue and avoiding such discussion in the future. Thanks, and best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments were to Gwillhickers, not to Yopienso. I apoligize if there were any misunderstandings in my statements. Gwillhickers was implying that Jefferson did not live in slave society. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the comment you made to me on this page, Slavery was an imbedded institution during Jefferson's times. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your apology, which I accept. I disagree with some of Gwillhickers' comments and approaches. My aim here was to calm the drama; it seemed to me you were inflaming it by repeated posts ("hammering") that contained inaccuracies. I appreciate your civility. Regards. Yopienso (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi. With reference to your message on my talk page is the vandalism that occurred, presumably from the IP address you were using before you logged in and commented on my user page last week.

You'll note that the vandalism occurred in 2007 and that the message was left then. So it probably wasn't you.

I hope this helps. Martinp23 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. This helps. Thanks Martinp23. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5
Hi. When you recently edited William W. Belknap, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George H. Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. When you recently edited George M. Robeson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reparations and O'Toole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. When you recently edited Virginius Affair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Confederacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. When you recently edited Lot M. Morrill, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Confederacy and Republican Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor note...
Hi Cmguy777! For obvious reasons I avoid using the unadorned SS as my initials - if needed, I go with StS. But plain Stephan is fine as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologized on your talk page concerning the initials. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:General Benjamin Butler Brady-Handy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:General Benjamin Butler Brady-Handy.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Annexation of Santo Domingo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Safe haven and Acquisition


 * George Henry Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Republican Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson to Cole
Earth to Mars, here. It is impossible that anyone who has read the letter in question could conclude, "TJ was advocating that slavery was good for blacks. TJ's reasoning was a rationalization for keeping blacks in bondage." Yopienso (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your point of view Yopienso. However, the facts are that Jefferson believed blacks were inferior by race and were equivalent to children. He believed slavery was the best position for blacks to hold in white society. Jefferson reluctantly only freed two slaves, and both of these slaves were mulatto from the Heming's family. Jefferson did not free one of his black slaves.  In his letter he said that all color was degrading and blacks were, according to Jefferson, the most degraded, and Jefferson rationalized that freeing them would harm them. That is an odd paradox for someone who suppose to be anti-slavery.  Freeing people from perputual bondage would be bad for them. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jefferson thought the blacks were racially inferior. His paternalism, however, was born of good intentions, such as those of Anna Sewell toward horses. I believe you misunderstand his comments in the letter wrt degradation: he was blaming whites for abusing them. He did want to see them free, according to that letter, but realized white society could not accommodate them. (Even in my own childhood in Florida, the public schools I attended were segregated by law. After they were integrated in 1967, parochial schools were still allowed to refuse black students, which the Southern Baptist schools certainly did.) To understand Jefferson, you must first understand he was born into a racist white society based on a slave economy not of his own making that he deplored philosophically but was helpless to remedy. Most abolitionists happened to have been born in a different region where the local economy was not directly based on slavery. (Even during the Civil War, though, northern manufacturers were economically forced to import contraband cotton. This was an open secret and permitted by the Army of the United States.) Finger-pointing from a distance in time or space is almost always misguided. Yopienso (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yopienso, with all due respect, Jefferson's white supremacy more then anything kept blacks enslaved up until the American Civil War. After the American Civil war, white supremacy, suppressed blacks civil rights and kept other nonwhite races from becoming U.S. citizens up until the 1950's. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jefferson was trapped in a white supremacist society from which he could not disentangle himself without making sacrifices greater than he was willing to bear. His finances were too precarious to provide each of his slaves with 160 acres of land outside of Virginia like Edward Coles did. (For 30 years, beginning on May 1, 1806, freed slaves could reside in Virginia only by special petition not often granted.) Manumission was a huge responsibility not lightly incurred. I suggest watching Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek in The Long Walk Home for a picture of the pervasive white supremacy in the South and the sacrifices required to buck it right up until the year of my birth. Disentangling oneself from the society and economy that provides one's very identity and livelihood is extraordinarily difficult. TJ cannot be judged by the standards now in place. Yopienso (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After July 9, 1868, all Negro/black persons born or who had been born in the U.S. were citizens. American citizenship by jus soli was extended to all persons in 1898 except Native Americans who maintained tribal ties. (Native Americans received unqualified citizenship in 1924.) This is not to disregard the fact that most non-whites did not fully enjoy the rights of citizenship despite their legal status. Yopienso (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Native Americans gained citizenship in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship Act signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge. There was the Japanese Internment during WWII by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Japanese and Koreans could not be citizens of the United States until 1952. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as Jefferson goes, historians can make excuses and the lower the bar on how "foe of slavery" actually is defined, however, this does not change that Jefferson only reluctantly formerly freed two of his slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are referring to immigrant Asians; I specified persons of Asian descent born on U.S. soil. This was in response to your gross overstatement, "Please understand Yopienso that in American history even into the mid 20th Century, non white people could not be U.S. Citizens."
 * Your communications indicate less interest in helping make an excellent article than in proving TJ was a white supremacist. You might want to read his letter to Benjamin Banneker.
 * Also, I'm not reverting it, but I don't really appreciate your moving my comment down below where I put it. I marked it with an {E/c} to show what happened. It makes more sense in direct response to your query about disentanglement, which you still don't seem to understand even though we've explained it clearly. Yopienso (talk) 00:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please excuse my mistake about that; don't know how I got so mixed up. Truly sorry. Yopienso (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

An excellent article of Jefferson would let the reader be given enough information to decide if Jefferson was anti-slavery. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Jefferson
Believe it or not, I have seen articles with much more hostility than the Jefferson article. When editors have strong opinions, and disagree on the basic facts, things like this can happen. Fortunately I think most of the editors are reasonable. If we keep working on it, we should be able to make the article look much better.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Q'. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1783)
Please don't continue to embarrass yourself at Talk:Thomas Jefferson.
 * George III did not call himself the Potent Prince of the USA.
 * "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America. . ." Everything in italics is Geo. III, who is recognizing two sovereign governments: 1. himself, 2. the USA. The "etc." (The second period is a typo.) abbreviates his list of titles and ends the part about himself. Notice the plural "Hearts"; one heart is George's and the other is America's.

Yopienso (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The King had no reason to mention the DOI.
 * A treaty is established between two sovereign nations. By signing the treaty, George acknowledged the sovereignty of the USA, and specifically acknowledged them "to be free sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such, and for himself his Heirs & Successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, Propriety, and Territorial Rights of the same and every Part thereof."
 * The War of 1812 gave us sovereign rights to the Mississippi River.
 * No, the USA is not still part of the British Empire. We declared our independence in 1776 and secured it in 1783. The British Empire ceased to exist in the latter part of the 20th century.
 * No, the article should not state that the British crown did not legally recognize the DOI. It recognized its independence and sovereignty in the Treaty of Paris. There was no reason to recognize the document of independence; recognizing the fact of independence was sufficient. George was not "granting the United States independence and autonomy"; he was recognizing what the patriots had bought with their blood.


 * You may have a point on the Prince of the United States since the term "Hearts" is plural rather then singular, however, the document appears to be a compromise. From 1776 to 1783 George III is recognizing loyalists as British citizens who had a right to their property, not as traitors to the United States. There is a mutual recognition of United States Independence. Yet, the lack of recognition of the Declaration of Independence is signfigant. The document stated forever on the Mississippi River. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, "forever" was from 1783-1814. Why do you think the King had to mention the DOI? Yopienso (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The DOI created loyalists and continentals and had to do with citizenship status. I never stated the King had to mention to DOI. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, what do you mean by "recognize the Declaration of Independence"? Yopienso (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Edwards Pierrepont
Let me know when you're done, and I'll look again at the article. It's obvious you are busy with it. I'm a spellchecker...
 * monoply
 * encourged
 * "let know guilty man escape."
 * gaurd
 * aquitted

BTW: I use FireFox which has an English spellchecker built-in. It helps. Shenme (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Please go ahead with the spell check. I tend to focus on content while typing. Thanks Shenme. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arthur TFA
Hi Cmguy777, I'm writing both yourself and Coemgenus regarding Chester A. Arthur. I would like to nominate it as a Today's Featured Article to run on the main page October 5th (Arthur's birthday) to coincide with the upcoming presidential election. I won't do so first without both of your consent, as you are the two main contributors to the article. Thanks --Chimino (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You have my consent. Please nominate Chester A Arthur for featured article. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, someone nominated William McKinley after I nominated Arthur, for a September date, and it was scheduled to run. That caused others to say it was too soon to run the Arthur article, so I had to withdraw the nomination. I'm not too happy about how that went down. Sorry about that, maybe it can go sometime next year.--Chimino (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The last I checked, the Chester A. Arthur article was a featured article. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwards Pierrepont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Invalid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

slavery
I wonder whether I could persuade you to work on Slavery in ancient Rome? We're working really hard at Roman Empire to cover all the topic areas that have been missing, while not letting the length get out of hand. Also, the section is specifically about slaves in relation to Roman law, not their working conditions or the general sociological picture. A section on "Slave labor", including what kinds of work they did, working conditions, and so on, goes under "Economy."

In addition, the section already says that slaves could accumulate money and be manumitted, and that freedmen (see the section Roman Empire) still had patronage obligations to their former master.

I hope you understand that we all appreciate your input! But if you want to go into slavery at greater length, I really urge you to either work on Slavery in ancient Rome, or create a section under "Economy" titled "Slave labor." Cynwolfe (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I wonder which Mattingly book you're using? The Mattingly book that's cited in the article, for instance, doesn't seem to use the word "caste." Cynwolfe (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The Roman Empire needs to have a Slavery section in order to broaden the scope of the article. If you appreciated my input, Cynwolfe, then why did you delete most of my edits and added a clarification notice? I was going to add the Mattingly book. I believe the best thing to do is add a slavery section to the Roman Empire article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Roman Empire
The structure and direction of the "Society" section was discussed on the talk page and has a consensus. Please don't change it without discussion and feedback. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The structure does not allow for additional input and only views slavery from a legal standpoint. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulysses S. Grant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bunting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert E. Lee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arlington House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orville E. Babcock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crystal Lake, Florida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)