User talk:Jdcrutch

House Rules
I'm glad to engage here in conversation and debate with fellow Wikipedians, and to receive their comments regarding my contributions to Wikipedia. Please note that if I respond to comments posted here, I will do so on this page, and not on the talk pages of other users (though I may post something on their talk pages to let them know that I've responded here). I don't like it when a talk page contains only one side of a conversation.

If people start using this page as a forum for debate, which they're welcome to do, I'll post some rules intended to keep things civil and interesting. For now, I'll just point out that if I come across here as excessively formal or stand-offish (for instance, by referring to people in the third person, instead of addressing them directly), it's not because I think I'm so great, or want to be unfriendly. It's because formality and decorum in debate are good manners, and they're the best way to keep a discussion from getting tiresome.

Jdcrutch (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Activated debates
Hi Jdcrutch. I invite you to feedback on my views in Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, I'm encouraging all involved since January to do so.Adam37 (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

House of Burgesses
You claim there have been "other legislatures" called the House of Burgesses. Care to name one? I don't see any mentioned on Wikipedia. Rklear (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That was fast! See Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives:  "The office evolved from the office of Speaker of the lower house of the legislature in the Province of Carolina, called the House of Burgesses."  The members of the Lower House of Maryland's colonial legislature were called Burgesses.  The official style of the house appears to have been "the Lower House", but it was commonly referred to, both colloquially and officially, as the House of Burgesses.  I'm sure a search of the Web would reveal others.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am going to copy this conversation to talk:House of Burgesses of Virginia for further discussion.-- Kubigula (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Archives
/Old Bot Messages About Calhoun Pictures

I'm charming, but hardly departed
I'm not dead, nor have I stopped contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for thinking my humorous remark was charming, though. I would also suggest you watch your throwing around "coon" so flippantly.Camelbinky (talk) 14:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Warning noted. Jdcrutch (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome, although I've been around for several years. I was careful to edit only the formatting of the Village Pump discussion, not any of the other contributors' text--not even spelling or punctuation.  If even that is against the rules, please let me know, and I'll gladly undo it. Jdcrutch (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding the tags like "Procedural oppose" to other people's comments isn't allowed, because it looks like they wrote that then. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Sorry about that. I saw that other discussions were formatted to show "Opposition", "Support", "Comment", etc., and that the section I'd started wasn't.  I assumed it would be acceptable and helpful for me to make it like the others, as long as I left other people's text alone.  I appreciate the trouble you went to, taking out my formatting and restoring the text.  I would have done it myself, if you'd asked me to.  Jdcrutch (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry about the length of the message I left. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems quite short to me! Hope my response isn't excessively long.  Jdcrutch (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have answered back to your reply. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Slave Power
I didn't really "move" anything as such, I merely adjusted indentation levels for consistency and clarity in showing reply relationships (though the diff view isn't good at displaying this). See Indentation, Talk page guidelines subsection "Fixing format errors".

As for the other matter, it's hard to discuss whether something is a conspiracy theory without trying to decide whether it has a basic grounding in reality or not... AnonMoos (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. As I said, I presume good intentions.  I've been scolded by a veteran for similar helpful adjustments, but I don't know the rules as well as you seem to.
 * I think your understanding of what a conspiracy theory is is inconsistent with Wikipedia's definition. It appears to me that a conspiracy theory may involve quite a lot of reality—may even prove correct—and need not be a symptom of insanity or folly; and that your objection to the classification of the "Slave Power" article under "Conspiracy Theories" rests on a too-strict definition of the category, apparently inspired by a belief that the "Slave Power" was not a theory at all, but an established fact. You're certainly entitled to that opinion, which some reputable scholars share; but a neutral, encyclopedic point of view, it seems to me, requires the article to acknowledge the mainstream view, which I take to be (and I believe I have Leonard L. Richards's support for this, unless his book has changed the mainstream view), that it was a theory, and, in many of its manifestations, a paranoid theory.


 * Jdcrutch (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that "Slave Power was an objective fact"; rather, I would say that some of the basic political analysis connected with Slave Power rhetoric had a great deal of objective validity during the 1852-1860 period, when southerners and southern-sympathetic northerners always controlled the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and the Senate (while the House went back and forth). Is there any reputable historian who does not believe that southerners and southern-sympathetic northerners controlled the Presidency, Supreme Court, and Senate during that period?? AnonMoos (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you want to see a real conspiracy mindset at work, just look at the "Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James" passages in the House Divided speech, but for some reason I doubt whether the Abraham Lincoln article has been added to Category:Conspiracy theorists... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alex Marshall (Journalist)
Hi, I'm Kudpung. Jdcrutch, thanks for creating Alex Marshall (Journalist)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. All journalists are published as part of their work. Citations to the subject's own work and WP:Primary  sources do  add notability. More independent  3rd party articles  with  in-depth coverage about tMarshall  are required.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Driehaus Architecture Prize nomination for "In the News"
Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Wikipedia at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: In the news/Candidates and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I'm completely ignorant of these matters and have no opinion about the Driehaus Prize.

J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. It's just that I saw you editing a relevant article of this field. Thx for your reply! -- Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

then-current
Just wanted to expand on my reversion of your reversion, because the brevity of edit summaries can lead to them sounding brusque, and I didn't want that. I removed "then-current" not just because it's bad writing from a stylistic standpoint, but also because it's bad writing from an informational standpoint. Anytime a sentence includes the phrase "then-current", it can be removed and leave the reader getting exactly the same information they would have otherwise, just with less wordiness. When the reader reads, "In 2006, a ceremony was held at which Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech", they automatically conclude that Dick Cheney was Vice President in 2006, unless there's some other qualifier like "former" or "future". (This is also why Wikipedians need to be careful not to write things like "In 2006, former Vice President Dick Cheney", which happens with some frequency.)

I suppose "then-current" does tell the reader that he was no longer Veep at the time the sentence was written, but it actually doesn't tell them that he's still no longer Veep now. And if we assume, as writers, that that's a piece of information the reader needs, it requires us also to assume that the reader is themselves assuming that because Dick Cheney was Vice President in 2006, they should expect him still to have been Vice President at some indeterminate point in the future when the sentence was written. That's simply not how people react to the material they read.

Again, apologies for the terseness of the edit summary. I do feel emphatically that the revised sentence is a more useful one to the reader, and that no reader learns anything from "then-current" that they haven't already learned without it, which is why I'm sticking up for the revision. Binabik80 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate 's cordiality, but I still disagree.


 * "Then-vice president Dick Cheney" does add information that "Vice President Dick Cheney" does not convey, as Binabik80 indeed suggests. Specifically, it informs the reader that, at the time adverted to, Dick Cheney was vice president, but that, at the time of reading, he no longer holds that office.  Compare the case of a divorced woman, who has remarried, referring to an event that took place during her first marriage, involving her first husband.  If she speaks of "my husband", without qualification, she seems to refer to her present husband, not her former.  To be clear, she must refer to "my then-husband", or "my husband at the time".  A reference to a former vice president is analogous.


 * Further, "Vice President Dick Cheney" improperly accords a title to Mr. Cheney to which he is not presently entitled. In a democratic republic, in which the offices of government are held only temporarily and are matters of popular election, rather than personal status, it is important, when we refer to former office-holders, and especially to recent former office-holders, that we acknowledge that they no longer hold office.  (This is particularly important in a self-consciously international publication such as Wikipedia, whose readers cannot be presumed to know the length of an American vice president's term, or, indeed, the name of the present incumbent of that office.)  At any given time, there is only one person entitled to be referred to as Vice President, without qualification:  viz.,  the current holder of that office.  (An exception would involve an extended narrative, set firmly in the past, in which all participants might properly be referred to according to their then-offices or titles, such as an account of the Nullification Controversy, in which it would be appropriate to speak of "President Jackson" and "Vice President Calhoun".)


 * As a courtesy, we would address a former vice president as "Mr. President" (or maybe "Mr. Vice President"--I don't know the specific protocol); but in general we ought to refer to him as "former vice president So-and-So", or (if referring to him at a particular time in the past) "then-vice president So-and-So".


 * As for the unsightliness of "then-vice president", that's a matter of taste, which I would say does not justify revision where, as here, another editor's version has substantive arguments in its favor.


 * I hope Binabik80 will find these arguments persuasive and will undo his recent revision. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I was making some other revisions to the "Legacy" section, and, since Binabik80 hasn't replied to my arguments above, I took the liberty of reverting "Vice President" to "then-vice president". If he can't live with that, I suggest we compromise by simply deleting the reference to Mr. Cheney's speech, which is in the nature of current events anyway, and is by now outdated: given that the speech is not notable in itself (otherwise it would merit its own article), I submit that neither where Mr. Cheney made a speech in 2007, nor who made a speech at a small historical observance in 2007, is notable in 2014.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 14:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Emerald ash borer
Hi Jdcrutch, I noticed your edit on the emerald ash borer page. I just wanted to let you know I'm currently working on condensing both Emerald ash borer and Emerald ash borer infestation down to concise content with reliable sourcing and (the infestation page has more problems with that than the species page). This will hopefully get to the point of re-merging the pages when a lot of redundant or unneeded content is parsed down. I've been taking the time to albeit slowly put reliable sources together and come up with a rough outline of what the merge might look like (some content is just copy/pasted from the articles and hasn't been condensed yet) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingofaces43/sandbox. Basically I'm willing to answer the call to put in some time into the article to source content as I was planning on that already, so if you have any suggestions in mind that you've thought of but didn't want to spend the time on, I'm definitely open to looking into them as I continue plunking away at edits. Thanks! Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Glad you're on it, and I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with.  I don't have any specific suggestions at this point.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 22:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Angus McMillan
Hi.

Seems that no one other than you and I want to contribute to the neutrality discussion at Talk:Angus McMillan. I reckon we can remove the NPOV tag as you suggested, but would welcome your views either way. Euryalus (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with what you've done. Thanks for taking care of it.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 16:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Haysi, Virginia
Regarding, it certainly seems to show a pile of old paint cans, don't you think? It's like asking for a source that the sky in the picture is blue. It just is. I'm not sure why the good people of Haysi wish to store this trash in such a venerable place, but pictures don't lie. Also, do you have a source stating that Haysi has a "Veteran’s Memorial Walk of Honor"? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * For a source, try this: "Veteran’s Memorial Walk of Honor". I can't tell what the picture shows in the background. There are two five-gallon buckets, but also what looks like a poster board and a bundle of something.  Maybe they were left by some demonstrators. Maybe they were being used by the groundskeeper, and the photographer didn't notice them.  Even if they are just some old paint cans, the name of the site is still the Veterans' Memorial Walk of Honor, and while it may seem clever to add a disparaging tag to that, it's disrespectful and unencyclopedic.  In these times when we're creating so many veterans, and so many disabled and distressed veterans in particular, it ill becomes anybody to make light of their sacrifice, or to detract from efforts to honor them. If you're sincerely concerned about accuracy, instead of cracking wise about it, why not ask the Town of Haysi to furnish a better picture?  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind that last bit: I've written to the town and hope they'll post a better photo.  J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 18:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just tell then to clean up the garbage pile inside the memorial; I'll photoshop my picture. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly hope they've cleaned up the site since that picture was taken! I'm actually not big on symbolic gestures, and prefer practical aid to veterans over monuments and bumper-stickers; but since Haysi saw fit to build a monument, they clearly have an obligation to maintain it properly. I trust your photo doesn't depict its usual state. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 13:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RM notice
You may be interested in Talk:Razorback, as you participated in previous related discussions. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 16:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Curious
I am not understanding your edit summary here, since your edit also corrected the same faulty apostrophe that my edit removed. Did Johnson not have more than one parent? If we are in agreement that "parent's" was incorrect, why the "unnecessary" in the edit summary? Since the original sentence was awkward, my thought was to attempt to correct the entire thing, rather than just correct the faulty apostrophe. Your thoughts ? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. I agreed with you about the apostrophe, but I didn't find the original sentence awkward. I took your objection to be to the use of "since" to mean "because", which I consider rather a pedantic objection to well-established usage.  Please forgive me if I misread you in that regard. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 01:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ah, I see ... thanks for explaining. It was the "both of his ... families" that I was trying to find a way to recast.  Anyway, as long as we've fixed the apostrophe, that part is no big deal.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

New information re "Jan Bogdan"?
BRIEF Followup - *entirely* unknown to me until now, there seems to be another biography of "Jan Bogdan" - in a soviet encyclopedia (English translation) - that was last updated in "September 2013" - and afaik not connected with my own Wikipedia article of "Jan Bogdan" (created in "October 2014" and deleted in "November 2014") - there seems to be some new information - and references - that may (or may not) be of interest - of course this "new" information may not change anything and may all lead back to the "doings" of "Waldo" and/or "Wachtl" but thought you might like to know about the WebPage - ALSO - besides "Barbour" and "Pula", seems there's a third relevant JSTOR reference => "The Mystery of the Missing Sources" by Arnold L. Pawłowski (1958) - Thanks in any regards for all your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Tertiary sources, like other encyclopedias, are generally not favored as sources for Wikipedia, although they "can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources...."  (No_original_research.)  I can't read Russian, and don't much trust Google Translate, so I can't pretend authoritatively to judge the article you refer to.  It does, however, appear to cite only late sources for "Jan Bogdan", and those, it seems to me, are almost certainly tainted by the Waldo & Wachtl deceptions&mdash;since nobody has come out with any other primary sources that name him.


 * Thanks also for the reference to Pawłowski, but I don't find that it adds anything to Pula and Barbour. I'm inclined to regard Pula as authoritative, since he seems to be the latest scholar to have investigated the case, and his paper is the most thorough of the three we've seen. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 17:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply - yes - I *entirely* agree with your comments - Pula seems best of the lot to me atm as well - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

FURTHER Followup - if interested => According to a soviet encyclopedia, "Jan Bogdan" was also named "Bogdan Ivan," "Ivan Bogdan," "Ivan Bohdan," "Lawrence Bohun," "Lavrentіy Bohun," "Ławrientij Bohun," "Lavrentiy Bohun" - According to one of the "English" References in the soviet encyclopedia: "Levrenty Bohun (also referred to as Ivan Bohdan), according to legend, [was] a doctor who accompanied Captain John Smith to Jamestown, Virginia in 1608" - Seems "Pula" (page 479) and "Barbour" (page 90) also refer to "Dr. Lawrence Bohun" [aside: for some reason JSTOR for me could be better - many freezeups/dropouts/no text search] - in any case - A somewhat detailed biography of "Dr. Lawrence Bohun" appears in the "Encyclopedia Virginia". Of course this may all be another instance of filopietism of one sort another and may all lead back to "Waldo" and/or "Wachtl", but would welcome any comments if you like.

QUESTIONS - Is "Dr. Lawrence Bohun" also "Jan Bogdan" as some seem to claim? Is "Dr. Lawrence Bohun" notable? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please re-read Pula, and pay particular attention to pp. 479-80. Bohun is an old English name, going back to the 12th C. (See also Barbour (1964), 90.) I cannot imagine any linguistic process by which "Jan" could become "Lawrence" (or "Lavrentiy" or "Ławrientij").  The Soviet encyclopedia's attempt to identify the mythical Bogdan with English physician Lawrence Bohun (who apparently arrived at Jamestown in 1610, two years after the Polish craftsmen) just makes it that much less credible to me.  Pula writes:
 * In the end, Haiman's identification of Poles rests on two factors, the first being the supposed similarity in sound or spelling of the names of people listed on English documents with traditional Polish surnames, a clearly spurious practice. "Where do you draw the line?" asked Sigmund Uminski in 1974. "What is there to prevent you from saying Kentucky as 'Kentucki'?"[Fn. om.] The second factor was Haiman's reliance on Wachtl's preliminary work.
 * Pula (2008), 480. Pula & Barbour do indeed refer to Dr. Lawrence Bohun, but they show clearly that there is no reason to think him anything but English; and they entertain no possibility that he is the same person as the fictitious "Jan Bogdan". You need to be much more careful in your use of sources.  The Soviet source appears to depend on Haiman, Wachtl, and Waldo, or on others who depend on them, but it does them one better with this spurious identification of "Bogdan" and "Bohun", which not even Haiman attempts.  I think it is thoroughly incredible.
 * Yes, I *entirely* agree with your comments about this - much of what you noted was similar to my own intial thinking about all this as well - but thought another view might be helpful - Thanks again for your help with this - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

 * Thanks, and the very same to you!

Rollbock
Hi JD. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English "usage" can indeed mean "habitual or customary practice" but it can also mean "the action of using something or the fact of it being used". I won't revert your edit, but thought you might like to know that you don't need to worry about altering "usage" to "use" in future. Hope that helps. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I realize that usage has a secondary definition as you point out, but I consider it a matter of good style to use the noun use instead for that meaning--which is the primary sense of use. Usage where use will serve strikes me as a needless augmentation, the addition of syllables to make a word seem more emphatic or more precise (as "fulsome" to mean full or "epicenter" to mean center).  But I suppose it is rather a matter of taste.  At any rate, thanks for the cordial message.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 17:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Confederacy
I apologize for accidentally deleting your edits. Rjensen (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. I finally figured out that it had been a mistake.  At first I was angry, because I thought your reference to the "WHITE page" was telling me to take my minority opinions to the white-supremacists; but then I saw your controversies with TexasReb over the minority opinions in the Texas v. White case, and figured out what had happened.  Merry Christmas.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 04:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Mulatto
Hello Jdcrutch, I was not aware that there was a scholarly consensus regarding Jefferson-Hemings. It was my understanding that there is still dissent and controversy regarding the parentage of Hemings' children, thus my edit; The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission by Robert F. Turner and the corresponding Wikipedia page Jefferson–Hemings controversy support this. I am not trying to step on toes here, I am merely attempting to separate theory from fact. WoodyBBad (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this cordial message. I haven't studied this issue since about 1998, when the DNA evidence came out, but my strong impression at that time was that the issue was pretty much settled:  that Hemings's children were most likely also Jefferson's, although there was doubt as to the paternity of her eldest son, Thomas Woodson.  In the latter case, Woodson might have been Jefferson's son (witnesses recalled that he strongly resembled Jefferson), but if so, Woodson was not the father of his own purported sons.  The DNA evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hemings's other children were fathered by a member of Jefferson's family (not the Carr brothers, who had been the prime suspects up to that time); there was no evidence implicating any specific member of the family other than Jefferson himself; and the other evidence, including Hemings family tradition, made it most likely that Jefferson was the father of Hemings's other children.  At the time, that was regarded as pretty conclusive evidence for Jefferson's paternity of the younger children.


 * If the report you cite is reliable, and accounts for the DNA evidence differently, I must defer to you; but if all you are saying is that some hold-outs still dissent from the prevailing view, I think it's better to say in Wikipedia that Jefferson is generally considered to have been the father of Hemings's children (with the likely exception of Woodson), though some scholars (if they are scholars) disagree. In any case, if you want to introduce doubt into the article, you should cite your sources. Thanks again for the cordial discussion. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nativism (politics). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. --Srleffler (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hang in there with Confederate States of America Page
Hi JDCrutch. Please hang in there with the dispute in the Confederate States of America page. I think it has become increasingly obvious that some editors will use their numerical superiority to delete/censor information that they have an issue with because it may be at odds with their own personal outlook on what the article in question should be slanted toward. I feel fairly confident in thinking you have seen it first-hand, yourself.

They use the all-inclusive term "consensus" as the alpha and omega, but only because (IMHO) it works to their advantage. They don't want to compromise, nor even discuss...and come up with the most outlandish reasons for excluding relevant information. Of which fall apart completely when examined and challenged closely...

Anyway, I just wanted to write to you and hope you will not just "bow out." You have made some devastating points, so please don't surrender them! TexasReb (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, TexasReb. Thanks for your encouragement. I don't hold out much hope for a neutral POV on any Wikipedia page dealing with the South, secession, the War of 1861, the C.S.A., etc.  There obviously is no consensus, but the alternatives are majority rule and fiat, neither of which is likely to produce a different result.  Such are the realities of academia that it's difficult or impossible to find reputable books and articles that present a balanced view of those matters.  Papers that say what I want to say on a given issue, if I can find them at all, are often old, and those often are tainted with white-supremacism and Segregationism, which I abhor, so I don't want to use them.  (I found a great quotation on Texas v. White, but it was from a 1915 article whose main point was that black people must not be allowed to vote.  So much for that!)


 * Recent books of the The South Was Right! school&mdash;to the extent that I've looked at them&mdash;even if they might say some things I want to say, tend to be right-wing diatribes against the modern federal government, and tend to be pretty weak on scholarship, so I don't consider them reliable sources. Even if good sources were out there, the best we might hope for would be an acknowledgment that there is still debate on some issues; but even that seems unlikely in the current atmosphere.  If you want to invoke mediation or some other mechanism for review, I'll participate as best I can, but what we really need is better sources.  I've been hunting for them, and finding some, but my time and energy are limited. Still, I'll do what I can.  Thanks again.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 15:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Jcrutch! I have figured out how (I hope I have! LOL), to officially request arbitration on the Texas v. White and wanted to know if you still wanted to participate...? I hope you do as you made some devastating arguments as in "if it is to be kept, then it is only fair that the dissenting opinion be offered as well." It may be a while before I make the formal request, but I definitely wanted to sound you out on it first.  Please let me know.  Thanks much! TexasReb (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi TexasReb. Not entirely sure why you want the dissent in White to be included in the C.S.A. article, since it strikes me as favoring an even more radical-reconstructionist, anti-Southern policy than the majority; but I'll participate in mediation or arbitration to the extent of advocating for the removal of White from the article altogether.  If Chase's opinion belongs in that article, so does Bledsoe's:  never mind the dissent in White.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 23:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello J.D. That sounds good. Total elimination of the article would be my first choice. In the event it is mandated to stay then the reason I wanted to include a summary of the dissent is to counter the ridiculous logic used by Chase to "prove" the illegality of secession. Just as a matter of review (just in case you don't have it right at your fingertips), here is the majority opinion paragraph in the Texas v. White section of the CSA article, followed by the dissent summary which I wrote up for the express purpose of providing a balance (honestly, in reading the whole dissent, I really never noticed anything pro-reconstruction nor overtly anti-Southern in it...as these things go, of course! LOL). But anyway (citations are removed for easier reading):

In Texas v. White'' the United States Supreme Court ruled -- by a 5–3 majority -- that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite claims that it joined the Confederate States of America. In this case, the court held that the Constitution of the United States did not permit a state to unilaterally secede from the United States. Further, that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null", under the constitution. This case decided one of the "central constitutional questions" of the Civil War. The Union is perpetual and indestructible, as a matter of constitutional law until amended. In declaring that no state could leave the Union, it was "explicitly repudiating the position of the Confederate states that the United States was a voluntary compact between sovereign states."''

''Two separate dissenting opinions were written by the three justices in the minority. While calling secession and subsequent support given it by the majority of Texas voters "a very ill advised measure", Justice Robert Grier opined that Texas was not a state by constitutional definition and had not been since it declared its secession from the United States in 1861, and this particular issue should be decided on "political fact and not as a legal fiction." Thus, he concluded Texas had no standing to file a suit before the Supreme Court. In writing a separate dissent, Justice Noah Swayne (speaking for himself and Justice Samuel Miller), sided with the majority opinion on the "merits of the case" itself, but agreed with Grier that Texas was not a state within the Union at the present time.''

My own opinion -- based on quite a few dealings with this "faction" LOL -- is that they absolutely do not want it in because it destroys one of their sacred cows. To wit, that the Confederacy was illegitimate from the start based on that secession was not permitted by the Constitution...and used the most dubious logic to "prove" such (which of course, being Lincoln men, they could hardly do otherwise! LOL). So that is the reason I favor including the above summary in order to provide a necessary balance on the whole issue, particularly in that the dissent makes clear that the Chase opinion was "legal fiction," not political fact. I hope that makes sense. However, if you feel otherwise, then I totally understand and more than welcome your support for total removal (which again is my definite first choice). Also, can you tell me more about the Bledsoe opinion? I am not real familiar with that one, and it might indeed be much better than the dissent! Looking forward to your reply! Thanks J.D.! TexasReb (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Don't have time right now to re-read the dissent in White, but my recollection was that Grier had pretty much endorsed the "State-suicide" theory and military Reconstruction. Maybe I misread him.  The opinion of Bledsoe is not a court opinion but is expressed in the very long-winded book, | Is Davis a Traitor? by Albert Taylor Bledsoe, whom, IIRC, Davis had enlisted to present the case for a right of secession (and thus for C.S. legitimacy) to the British court.  (The war and the C.S.A. ended before Bledsoe could finish the book, so he published it as a defense of Davis.)  Bledsoe makes about as complete a case as one could ask for, and then some.  He's a bit of a sophist (his other book on freedom and slavery is pure sophistry, at least as far as I got in it) but the evidence and arguments he marshals on secession are pretty dispositive in my opinion.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have heard of the book, but never read it (and now want to even more). Anyway, the only thing I wanted to include (assuming the whole damn thing is not eliminated entirely! LOL)is just that little segment I posted above (I went back and  put it in italics).  As you might see, it is really just the same sort of summary that those other editors are so protective of with the Chase dissent (the top one is the one presently in the Texas v. White section, and the bottom is the one they kept eliminating.  Again though, just your input on the case for tossing the whole thing out works for me, and I appreciate it.


 * On a related tangent, if and when you get a chance, yes, please read the whole dissenting opinion(s) in Texas v. White. Honestly, I honestly didn't see anything in there that supported a state-suicide or military reconstruction point of view. In fact, several times he said it was not his purpose to get into certain things as they had no relevance to the case.  His sole concern was that Chase's opinion was flawed because it relied on dicta and opined on matters not before the court (i.e. the right of secession prior to the war itself).  He rightfully called it "legal fiction."  Grier's sole concern was whether or not Texas was "presently" a state in the Union, and on that point he blows Chase right out of the water! LOL


 * Anyway, when you do get around to reading it, let me know what you think; naturally I would be very interested, as I could have read it wrong myself. For convenience sake, here is a very concise link to the background and the respective opinions without any editorial fluff.  I might add that the syllabus part is rather lengthy, but it gives background on the case.  The opinions themselves are below it and can be easily linked to if you want to skip the syllabus part:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700#writing-USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZD   Thanks JCrutch! TexasReb (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I've actually printed out the whole case, and I read Grier's dissent a few weeks ago.  The passage I was thinking of earlier was this:
 * I can only submit to the fact as decided by the political position of the government; and I am not disposed to join in any essay to prove Texas to be a State of the Union, when Congress have decided that she is not. It is a question of fact, I repeat, and of fact only .  Politically, Texas is not a State in this Union.  Whether rightfully out of it or not is a question not before the Court.


 * White at 739. I took his deference to Congress as an indication of support for military Reconstruction; but on reconsideration, and further reading about Grier, I see that he probably did not mean it that way.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 01:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun Article
Per your recent suggestion, I have added a reference for my recent edits to the John C. Calhoun article regarding the involvement of his wife, Floride Calhoun in the Petticoat Affair from the article I previously created on Mrs. Calhoun. If you feel the reference I added is insufficient or you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to let me know. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would like for somebody to do a bit more research on the Petticoat Affair.  Charles Wiltse, in his biography of JCC, gives the impression that Mrs. Calhoun has been unjustly accused of organizing the ostracism of Peggy Eaton.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 01:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted in my previous comments, I created the Wikipedia article on Floride Calhoun, so if you have any reliable information or insight regarding her involvement in the Petticoat Affair, I would encourage you to add it to the article or at least initiate a discussion on the article's Talk page.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invitation. What I lack, unfortunately, is time!  I've been meaning to undertake a wholesale rewriting of the article on JCC, but I don't know when I'll be able to do the reading, let alone the writing!  Maybe I can find time to do a paragraph just on Floride and the Petticoat Affair, but I make no promises, so don't hold your breath. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 02:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, I certainly understand having commitments outside of Wikipedia, but when you do find the time to re-write the John Calhoun article, please free to contact me if you need assistance with the sections relating to his relationship with his wife and her involvement in the Petticoat Affair. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Uffington White Horse
"deleted unsourced "indigenous" description of British Celts; they migrated to Britain." - actually few archaeologists have believed that for many decades now, as far of the great majority of the "Celtic" genes are concerned. Now dna evidence generally confirms they were right not to. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DAB page
Thanks for your edit to Philadelphia (disambiguation). Please note that each DAB entry should include exactly one wikilink, and not additional information links. The purpose of the DAB entry is to help the user figure out which one of the entries he/she is looking f0r, not to give him/her additional info on the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply
"Looking at your talk page, I see I'm not the only person you've tried to bully on Wikipedia"

Bully? Dude, watch your choice of words and think before you speak. Trivia is trivia. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing is that you don't even edit any of the New York City Subway articles, so how the hell are you going to tell me that I'm wrong? For example, almost all routes have a short turn during rush hours (such as the A at Dyckman or 168th, D at Bedford Park, N and Q at 57th, N at 86th, F at Avenue X, 1 at 137th/City College, 2 at Nereid, 3 at 145th, etc). We're not going to mention all of them, are we? Now you understand why I reverted you? And the amount of people agreeing doesn't count by the way, so your excuse means nothing. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

One last thing, if you really think they are all worth mentioning, then you might as well add that the F is the second longest New York City Subway service and the 2 being the third. And I can tell you without a doubt that nobody cares, that's nothing important. While you're at it, you might as well mention every single car assignment history in the New York City Subway articles. Trivia is not allowed on Wikipedia. We only edit things that are important. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"Non-"
Oh, I didn't know that. But as for here, I guess what matters most in that kind of situation is if most of the article was written in the form of English from its original country (British) or if it was written in a US-Americanized form. But in Tile I can't tell. If you find signs of that article's having been written mostly in British English than the US version, then go ahead and revert my nonhypehenated edition of "nonrepeating" back to "non-repeating."

Springing Up (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Partition of States in the United States) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Partition of States in the United States, Jdcrutch!

Wikipedia editor Non-dropframe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Outstandingly written new article! Well researched and very interesting."

To reply, leave a comment on Non-dropframe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


 * Thanks, but I can't take much credit: I mostly just cut it out of the article, "Secession in the United States" (after discussion on the Talk page for that article), and edited it a little.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

John Thomas sign
You PRODded this, and I deleted it. Undeletion has now been requested on my talk page, so I have restored it, and now let you know in case you want to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 14:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bosnian war 'death' figures
Just to let you know, I partially reverted your changes. In one case, 'casualties' was the title of a paper. The figures themselves are actually 'dead or missing long-term', with the vast majority being confirmed dead, but without precise figures as to what that majority is. Also the 'unknown status' category is largely unknown as to whether they were military or civilian, or some other substantial piece of information. The ethnicity of this category is unstated, rather than 'unknown'. I've changed your 'deaths' to 'dead or missing', but omitted it where repetition would be cumbersome. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I should not have changed that title, and I'm glad you caught my mistake.  On the other hand, the text of the article, which I didn't change, makes it pretty clear that the figures given in the tables are for deaths.  It does say that, in 2007, the RDC published "a database that initially revealed a minimum of 97,207 names of Bosnia and Herzegovina's citizens confirmed as killed or missing during the 1992–1995 war."  (Emphasis supplied.)  But thereafter, citing 2012 figures, it refers only to deaths.  For example,


 * The 2012 figures recorded a total of 101,040 dead, of whom 61.4 percent were Bosniaks, 24.7 percent were Serbs, 8.3 percent were Croats and less than 1 percent were of other ethnicities, with a further 5 percent whose ethnicity was unstated.
 * Civilian deaths were established as 38,239, which represented 37.9 percent of total deaths. Bosniaks accounted for 81.3 percent of those civilian deaths, compared to Serbs 10.9 percent and Croats 6.5 percent.
 * and, regarding the second table,
 * and, regarding the second table,
 * and, regarding the second table,


 * These figures were not based solely on 'battle deaths', but included accidental deaths taking place in battle conditions and acts of mass violence. Specifically excluded were "non-violent mortality increases" and "criminal and unorganized violence increases”. Similarly 'military deaths' include both combat and non-combat deaths.


 * (Emph. supp.) The numbers given in the text for deaths are identical with those given in the tables, originally, for casualties.  All I did (that is, all I intended to do) was to make the tables say what the text says.  I don't think you were right to change those edits, but I leave it to you to decide whether or not to undo that.  The main thing for me was to eliminate the use of "casualties" as a synonym for "deaths".


 * I'll give you "unknown status", even though the number given under that rubric is identical with that given for "Ethnicity unstated", because the article does suggest that the dead of unstated ethnicity may also be of unknown status vis-à-vis military service (or maybe that those numbers just happened to be the same—it's not really clear).


 * At any rate, I appreciate your catching my error with that title, and your cordial disagreement, which I hope I've reciprocated. <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I updated the text and table last spring to include the 2012 'final' report and figures, therefore if wording in text and table don't align, it is 9/10 my fault. The 'unknowns' (and I spent some time trying to fathom this), included unknown military/civilian but implication was that sometimes where other substantial info was missing, they were likewise included as 'unknown'. My recollection (9 month old) is that 'unknown' figures were almost identical to earlier 'still being processed' figures, ie that it is very possible that the 'unknowns' were still 'un-resolved' at the time they closed, though this was nowhere stated explicitly.


 * I'll go back to sources and if you are correct about deaths/missing, modify the text. I was extremely cautious about phrasing, but may have inadvertently left out-of-date info, or omitted an 'or missing' because I thought it had already been said. 'Casualties' was the term used by the RDC itself, though they were clear throughout their work that they were referring to dead and 'missing, presumed dead', therefore I have no objection to your change, which is more explicit, the only issue is whether they confidently state all as 'deaths', or whether they still said 'dead or missing' in their final 2012 figures.


 * The RDC's methodology was very rigourous, one of the consequences of their rigour was that the 'missing' were people who were almost certainly dead, but they lacked sufficient supporting info to state that confidently. A great deal of their early work was 'pruning' duplicate initial reports which had not been picked up because of variant spellings/DoBs etc on initial 'missing' reports by relatives, resulting in early very inflated figures.


 * Some of the lack of clarity, is in the original, partly because they were extremely cautious in their pronouncements. I was trying to strike a balance in my phrasing between clarity, and echoing their caution. I'll check sources sometime over the next week, and see if phrasing can be made clearer and more particularly whether final figures are 'dead' or 'dead or missing'. Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Aha! I hadn't realized that you were the original (or at least the latest) author, but I was presuming that the text was authoritative, at any rate.  Your caution is correct and laudable, especially given the politically and emotionally charged character of much of the information we encounter concerning that conflict.  (Not knocking the RDC, though.  I take your word for it that they were very rigorous.)  I have my own views, too, of course, but, as I said earlier, my only reason for editing as I did was to make it clear that casualties ≠ deaths (or deaths + disappearances).  I believe you'll honor that distinction in whatever revisions you may make.  Thanks for being conscientious.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 01:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, I'm going to copy this conversation onto the article talk page. Whilst I was the 'copy-editor' of present text on this section, other editors acted as 'oversight' and may have views. Initial research last night compounded, rather than clarified the confusion, some of our sources for the 2012 figures boldly referred to 'deaths', whilst others continued to say 'd or m'. In context, the likelihood of any statistically significant number of 'missing' being 'found' after such an interval is VERY slim, though I don't know if sources state that explicitly. 'Unknown' does appear to refer to 'unsorted' and is sometimes referred to as such by the source we use for civ/mil and ethnicity figures, the same figure (5,100) appears in a number of charts (such as gender, and it isn't really possible to be fairly certain that someone is 'd or m' without knowing their sex).


 * Your use of 'disappeared' may be useful, it may be clearer than 'missing', which suggests that they are likely to be found, I believe its use is justified. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no objection. You seem to be on the right track.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 13:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Capone (surname) and Maiorana
Hi User:Jdcrutch, can you take a look at the Capone (surname) and Maiorana surname articles and add/replace references (the main ones are houseofnames.com and ancestry.com), add links and reword some of what's written so it sounds more appropriate. I'm asking you because of your edits to the Madison (name) article, so I know you're good at wording name articles. It would be greatly appreciated, cheers. ♦EMPEROR of the DALEKS♦  talk  08:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the flattering request, but I really can't take on this task. You seem to know what needs to be done, and I'm sure you can do as good a job as I could.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 17:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Uses for infoboxes
If you're interested in how other people re-use our data from infoboxes, this Google talk - - is an eye-opening example. It's rather old (2008) and rather long (51 minutes), but it presents an application that I'm sure none of us could have anticipated when we created the infoboxes. That sort of unexpected value is what makes it so hard to balance which human interests are being subordinated by keeping the data clean or not. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Viscount Simon
I am sorry but I had seen your explanation before removing the "vague" tag and I cannot see why you thought the contrary. Anyway, I am glad that the whole issue is now clear.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I apologize for the double-revert yesterday to the Partition of States in the United States article. I was completely caught off guard by your objection to the redirect and overreacted. In my mind the redirect was logical and appropriate, and consequently I expected that no one would object. As you have, I’ve undone my redirect and have begun a merge discusssion. I’ve started the discussion on the article’s talk page, and posted notice of it here. Kind regards. Drdpw (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have asked that my complaint for edit-warring be withdrawn.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 18:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on Calhoun
There is currently an upgrade effort on John Calhoun on the Talk page there taking place by User:Display which you might be interested in. Possibly you could take a glance at it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. In fact, I've been watching.  I've agreed with most of what Display name 99 has been doing, and in any case I appreciate her or his hard work.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 15:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Eponym
Unfortunately I cannot see the page number, but in the Introduction, under "Who is it for?", it says: "Birders often come across bird names that include a person (such names are properly called 'eponyms'), and their curiosity will be aroused ..." So I assume this would be no different in other animal names like "Grant's gazelle". In these cases, as I understand, the eponym is the name itself, and not the person it is named for. JMK (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If I type "eponym" into google I also get two different meanings, of which the wikipedia article only seems to explain the first: "eponym ˈɛpənɪm noun, a) a person after whom a discovery, invention, place, etc., is named or thought to be named. b) a name or noun formed after a person. And the same is given here. JMK (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I see what you mean, and I've undone my reversion of your edit.  <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk 16:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

John C. Calhoun Peer Review
Hello Jdcrutch. I'm just letting you know that the John C. Calhoun article has begun to be peer-reviewed. One reviewer has left a series of comments, which I plan to address myself shortly. I'm writing to let you know in case you would like to participate. Thank you for your help at the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Trist
Not sure if you still have Nicholas Trist on your watchlist, but if not please keep an eye on it. Basically I agree with your assessment on the talk page there about lack of neutrality etc. Also in general the article is weak and poorly cited. I will be working on it incrementally over the next week or so. The reason I ask that you keep an eye on it is that it is possible some controversy might break out and I would like to hear balanced discussion, if it does. Hopefully not, however. Much of my interest BTW is based on a book by Norman Graebner, who taught at UVa -- so that might be of interest to you as a Virginian (as you disclose on your user page). However note that Graebner is a bit one-sided himself -- the truth about Trist is not clear cut. I will be attempting to re-write the article with this in mind, actually. In any case, to repeat, all I ask is to keep an eye on it. Thanks! LaurentianShield (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : <tt>J. D. Crutchfield</tt> &#124; Talk

to
 * : J. D. Crutchfield  &#124; Talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you reviewed this edit to Secession in the United States?
I've been keeping an eye on a particular editor, TropeWatcher, and this recent, large edit of theirs, to an article with which I have little familiarity (but whose talk page you have recently edited) is one that I'm not equipped to evaluate. I am also confounded as to the intent of the editor's recent edits, which have been reverted. All I'm asking is that some other eyes look the edit over. Thanks--Quisqualis (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for contacting me, but I'm trying to stay out of controversies on Wikipedia.  J. D. Crutchfield  &#124; Talk 15:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No sources cited, so I don't have to comprehend the edit. Thanks anyway.--Quisqualis (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)