User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian/Archive 2

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Puerto Rico".The discussion is about the topic Puerto Rico. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Puerto Rico
Hello my friend,

Thank you for your message. It seems as if we have a lot in common. We are about the same age, served in the military (by the way thank you for service), we love history and writing about military related subjects. I had checked out your user boxes before, very nice.

We may differ in regard to what the political status of Puerto Rico should rightly be, Independent or state as in statehood, however the bottom line is that Puerto Rico's political structure and future all depends on what the United States wants. Nobody tells the boss what to do. It is what the boss wants and is best for him. We are not kids anymore who could be fooled by what we are told or by what we are lead to believe, If our country, the United States, has influenced the politics of foreign nations thru agencies such as the CIA, then what is to keep the US from dealing with the politics of Puerto Rico and it's future?

In regard to the "incorporated" or "unincorporated" issue, I agree that more research into the subject is needed. The problem is that a discussion of this subject may turn political. When a subject becomes "political" or is of a political nature, then it is tough to decide who is right and who is wrong. When it comes to politics and/or religion, everybody is right and everybody is wrong, depending on individual believes. When we cite the so-called reliable sites by scholars and so on, we must be careful as to how reliable they are. Scholars, historians and authors are often biased and influenced by their own personal believes and the times in which they lived. What we need to conclude the issue involved is a copy of an official legal document in which the Government of the United States has made it clear if the island is "incorporated" or "unincorporated".

Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. They will make it easier to "let it go" when the time comes. My guess is that you were an outstanding MP. It seems as though participants in the discussion fear the loss of any reference to "unincorporated", -- when of course Puerto Rico must be "unincorporated" as long as the discriminatory tax regime is enforced on PR where it would be unconstitutional for a state. My guess is stockholders of Puerto Rican sugar interests are not interested in bringing legal suit to change it. politics, as you say.


 * Regardless, my point seems to be entirely lost, I wish only to present a) there is a controversy as sourced at Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p. 17, and b) one side says "incorporated" as ''sourced at Boston College Law Review, p.1175.


 * Because the discussion was begun by an unreasonable IP who wanted to replace "unincorporated" with "incorporated" everywhere, and because the discussion was pushed to DRN before working out the reasonable language I was looking for in consensus, it looks as though my interest in presenting the controversy will fail to be included in the article. And I just can't see bringing it up again for a year without seeming disruptive. Mercy11 already thinks I was the wild-eyed IP. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To tell you the truth, I told myself "I like this guy, this is someone you can talk to". You see my friend, in this project there are too many people who are uncivil and with whom you cannot have an intellectual discussion or conversation. It is always nice to find someone with whom you can converse. Take care and Semper Fi Tony the Marine (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Project Talk Page
I have reinstated your removal of the DRN section at the Puerto Rico project Talk Page since the DRN in question (HERE) was closed just yesterday, making the information too recent to be removed. This is particularly so given that there is now a consequential follow-up RfC on the same issue HERE. I think it is useful information for a newcomer to have the background information accessible to him, and removal would prevent them from just that. I think you will agree that there is a wealth of information and opinions that were presented at the DRN, but which someone new to the discussion may find necessary to access. Yet removal of the link would make that difficult or impossible depending on the user. Most importnatly, the page in question is archived by a bot. I appreciate your understanding. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You duplicated the information for the DRN in your own post, moved the RfC notice out of chronological order, and demoted the RfC which incorporated comments from all sides in the discussion section and at the DRN. I simply removed my own post now duplicating yours. Please read the RfC carefully before you object to it, it incorporates your viewpoint also. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing stamps
Aye TVH, I see your Civil War stamps page is shaping up. I added a stamp for Andrew Johnson, which was missing. Also, I noticed you have added a section for Abraham Lincoln stamps, but it (and the entire article/draft) is missing the first Lincoln stamp, issued in 1866, one year exactly, after death. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

My comment on Talk:Puerto Rico
Apologies if my comment was misunderstood. I did state, "Thank you all..." - although I can understand that it may have appeared to be directed specifically at you per the threading. You're certainly not the only one guilty of protracting the discussion. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

re: Virginia in the American Civil War
Hello, VH, thank you for noting the previous editing I had done on that page. Unfortunately my edit was undone arbitrarily in a retardataire manner. Compare my edit with what is currently on that page as well as History of Virginia. This is the old version of my original edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Virginia&oldid=316388037#West_Virginia_split

I have the 1861 list of Virginia voting districts by counties if you are still interested in having it. If so I will add it to this post. Sincerely, Dubyavee (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, please. thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are the voting districts, I scanned it rather than type it all out. If you need the citation it is "Ordinances Adopted by the Convention of Virginia at the Adjournd Session, in June and July, 1861", Wyatt M. Elliott, Printers, Richmond, 1861, page 44.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3810/12597476383_f47609d587_b.jpg

I will probably change the WV material on the Virginia pages at some point, but it has been very difficult. There have been a lot of changes in scholarship over the last "75 years", and we need to bring the material up to date. One doesn't use "reliable sources" if the reliable sources are provably wrong, no matter how revered the historian is. Dubyavee (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. it goes into my "Virginia History" notebook.


 * Not sure how to persuade Rjensen. His objection seems to be one of academic turf wars. Virginia historians do not do West Virginia, so WP 'Virginia ---' should not do West Virginia so much. But if the people in the time called themselves "Virginians", then it seems to me they should be in the Virginia history article to some degree, regardless of how modern academia choses to divide themselves so as to make scholarly disjunctions for their professional purposes. Those are not the purposes of the general reader, nor the history of the people of that time.


 * On the other hand, I am not proposing that 'West Virginia in the ACW' and 'Virginia in the ACW' be merged, however logical that might be, so I do see something in Rjensen's point. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps was accepted
 Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Page launch
Hi TVH, I noticed you havn't created the American Civil War history on stamps page yet. Was just wondering why. Seems you have more than enough sourced content to make the plunge. Are there any issues? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My notifications box says DragonflySixtyseven reviewed the 'ACW on stamps' candidate 9 days ago with a green box checked.


 * The same editor reviewed the 'History of Virginia on stamps' with a green box checked 14 hours ago.


 * How do I know if the article is in mainspace? Is that mine to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you don't need the permission of anyone to launch a page in the first place. If any new page has issues they can be fixed. If the page has so many issues where it's nominated for deletion that's another matter, but again, you need no one's permission. Your article is good to go. The above link is red because the page doesn't exist. Click on it, and simply copy and paste your draft into the edit window and hit 'save'. Then add categories, links, etc as needed. After you save, the link will then become blue, just in case you didn't know. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is created as a B class, Commemoration of the America Civil War on postage stamps, with the war misspelled. It seems debilitatingly long. Main article: American Civil War is deleted, categories are deleted. The title does not come up on any subject searches, it is so convoluted that the bot cannot suggest any subject links -- not even American Civil War.


 * I would prefer the title ‘American Civil War on postage stamps’ or 'American Civil War history on stamps' since the stamps used in the war and the stamps commemorating famous Americans and presidents are not explicitly commemorating the Civil War, the article provides the value added recounting the civil war careers of participants pictured on stamps, the stamps give the wp:significance of the biographies to be included in the article.


 * The story is the American Civil War, including the explicit commemorations of soldiers, sailors and events, -- but that is conceptually only one-third the article subject matter, omitting the stamps of the war and the famous Americans on stamps with Civil War biographies. Do I now just start a new article title with the same text, make the article links, and let a bot delete the orphan? Is there a reason for deleting the tag, main article: American Civil War? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlotte Amalie (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, 10.4.0.34 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Perforation and Gumming
Dear Virginia Historian, Please do not take it amiss that I’d like to suggest that you make a correction in your article on Civil War-related stamps. You say that the first US stamps were produced with perforation and gumming machines. This is not accurate. All US stamps issued between 1847 and 1856 were imperforate, requiring manual cutting; and sheets were likewise gummed by hand. In 1856 or ’57, perforation apparatus (acquired from England) went into use in the US; stamps continued to be gummed by hand until 1880 (see the Wikipedia article on Postage Stamp Gum).

I’m not quite sure how to rewrite the section to ensure accuracy while preserving your point about rapid technological innovation (which the prompt introduction of mechanized perforation within a decade surely exemplifies), and I’m hoping you’ll find the best way. All best, BFolkman — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFolkman (talk • contribs) 14:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I'm afraid I'm new to the field in a scholarly way, though a collector or enthusiast for over fifty years. Retirement and Wikipedia have given me a new outlet for the hobby interest, most recently a section at U.S. territories on 'Territories on stamps'. I should be able to qualify the statement to align with other sources. Thanks for your contributions, I am happy to be a part of something bigger by collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Images
Dear Virginia Historian, I'm afraid I can't help you--I'm not a Mac user, and I've never tried to upload fair use images. Someone who might be of help, and who has done some editing on your Commemoration piece, is GWillhickers. Hope you're ultimately successful. All best, BFolkman (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I kept hammering at it, found on the mac you can reformat the .tiff file into .jpeg, which is rendered .jpg on the upload wizard. the same image on .jpeg is 20% of the size of the same image with .tiff. That brings them all under 100KB, which I believe is some sort of default limit for the upload wizard. I uploaded 'New Orleans capture', as a fair use for the article. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thirteenth Amendment (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) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Some mo'
Washington Territory

Minnesota Territory

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have been adding new ones to my sandbox before reorganizing... could you help out with Antietam and Vicksburg? I've uploaded two fair use stamps at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps for battles, but I repeatedly fail at Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. I've been spending a lot of my editing time on the Thomas Jefferson page, removing unused sources, adding content, citations, clean up, etc. To break the monotony I've been uploading various stamp images and then upgrading the respective stamp images. Anytime you want to see my latest stamp image uploads go to my user page and click on Gallery of uploads in the caption under the stamp image. Will be uploading the Washington Territory and Minnesota Territory images some time today, after I capture, enlarge and tweak the tone and clarity with my trusty ole photo editor, Btw, did you see my message left on the Territories of the United States talk page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks. Yes, but the territories article may not be analogous to the United States, since about a third of the U.S. territories page is charts..., I thought I'd wait to see what the crew there had to say first. I'd still like to launch the U.S. territories on stamps after a little more work.


 * I've now collected over sixty stamps for the U.S. territories and settlement sandbox, but some resorting is in order, and some narrative needs to be completed. Is there something I can do in my initial uploads to improve quality? I'm going from .tiff to .jpeg to make the files smaller...


 * At the USPS website, | Uses not requiring permission, it advises, fair usage includes, "Noncommercial, educational uses limited to teaching, scholarship, and research. ", -- doesn't Wikipedia qualify? --that the only qualification is that "users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, and include language such as: "© United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.""


 * I did not know to include the two caveats in my previous upload tries. But I noticed the Luis Marin stamp at Wikimedia Commons was uploaded by someone using the cyrillic alphabet, claiming USPD origin, even though it was issued under the USPS. I did not use that image in my "Puerto Rico on Stamps" new section at "Puerto Rico".


 * My Togo stamp is being challenged at Wikimedia Commons for deletion -- the Emancipation Proclamation I uploaded  for Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps from the National Postal Museum is only 51 years old... I don't think it can stay up, since the French have a limit of 70 years, and I haven't found Togo postal regulations in English. In the old days, I'd just call someone at the Togo Embassy, or email them from work, whether in DC or NYC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've made reference to the USPS site in the attempt to justify 'fair usage', but unfortunately it fell on ultra opinionated ears whose approach to fair use policy was almost robotic. Anyways, I've been going through my stamp collections again, which, aside from stamp albums, consists of cigar boxes and boxes of stamps. Lot's of mixtures I've yet to fully inspect. Here's another territory stamp you might want to use. Indiana Territory. I've been busy today and haven't gotten around to editing and uploading the others stamps yet, but I will shortly. Probably tomorrow. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC) ✅


 * -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful. I will switch them out into the article.

I was successful with Antietam battle yesterday, referencing the guideline from the USPS "Fair use exception" for noncommercial purposes... It says, ''Users must cite the source of the image, the United States Postal Service®, ... [and use language like] ... © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved.'', so in the source box, I placed " United States Postal Service®, © United States Postal Service. All rights reserved." On the fourth try, success. But because there is no feedback, I do not know if that was what reviewers were waiting for. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note: If the stamp was issued before 1978, it came from the U.S. Post Office, not the USPS. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We're good. I may have overlooked the second Marquette - explorer stamp, but I've collected almost all related to U.S. territories, settlement, founders and explorers -- the data base of sixty-odd stamps for "U.S. territories on postage stamps" to date is pre-1978.


 * I held up on any more uploads in U.S. territories project until a routine for fair usage is figured out. In January 1978 there is a Capt. James Cook exploring Hawaii, 2008-20010 Flags of our Nation series have five territory flags: Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands... so there is more than the stamps I have in hand to feature later on --- based on the leads in the Scott Specialized Catalogue. There is still a couple day's work for some more narrative and organization to do before launch. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I find myself slowly getting back into philately around here. I just uploaded a hi-res image of the Leif Erikson stamp. You can view it at my 'Gallery of Uploads'. Check it out in full view. Enjoy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts appreciated in Talk:United States
Hello, I see you have been active today. It would be nice if you contributed any thoughts, concerns or approval to the final proposal for the Cold War section. There were a total of 3 proposals (one initially from me and two alternate from VictorD7) and after a little more discussion we came up with a final draft combining our concerns which is the fourth/last one. There is also the trimming of the Contemporary history section below that. Even though it's already short I still wanted it to conform with the "Big Picture" formula we have agreed on. Me, Victor and Philpill are the only ones who contributed thoughts so far, and even if you just commented that you agree with the proposals, it would look better if more than 2-3 people contributed to give an impression of consensus so I can go ahead with implementation. Cadiomals (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on stamps
I moved your section in Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico to Puerto Rico on stamps as it is really more suitable for a topical article and didn't belong where it was. In particular, the stamp images were not fair use for the article subject and would probably have been deleted eventually, whereas they are fair use in a topical article. I expect you will want to expand the new article to include more stamps which could include PR themed stamps from other countries. Have you considered using a gallery rather than a table to display the images? Philafrenzy (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The U.S. stamps were recommended to be placed at Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico by a consensus at Talk:Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States. How are not U.S. stamps commemorating Puerto Rico a part of Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico?


 * The only other stamps are Spanish colonial stamps jointly issued at Cuba and Puerto Rico during Spanish colonial times, which is less than the scope of the subject article, Postage stamps and postal history of Puerto Rico. Please offer some sort of explanation for arbitrarily removing conceptually half (U.S.) of its "postage stamps and postal history" and leaving half (Spanish) without discussion. Wikipedia has sources showing Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth, organized, unincorporated territory of the United States, that is the consensus of scholarship.


 * I will procede by linking the new article into the Puerto Rico article, but some explanation in the context of the week-long consensus building there would be nice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit I was not aware of the discussion but the content is a topical subject, not about modern stamps OF Puerto Rico (for which there are none as you say). That discussion should have taken place in the Philately Project. You are now free to expand the article as much as you like and to include other countries too if you wish. Importantly, the stamps you included under fair use were not under a valid rationale as they are not essential to a discussion of the postage stamps and postal history OF Peurto Rico, they merely illustrate topics ABOUT Puerto Rico and therefore may have been deleted. They are valid fair use on the new article. I would have thought that you would welcome this new article? I put the rationale for the changes here and in the edit summaries. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is nothing wrong with just taking it up to the incorporation into the U.S. if that is as far as it goes, but if you want to take it further you need the post incorporation postal history as content as there won't be any PR stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why yes I am pleased the work is not lost. In some way, there is strictly no postage stamp OF Puerto Rico, only of Spain and of the United States. The place never obtained independence. As a territory it enjoys a population larger than 20 states, even with half of all self-identified "Puerto Ricans" on the mainland --- and it is home to a fierce local pride, as you might have gathered.


 * Back to philately, I am interested in starting an article, U.S. territories on stamps. It looks at U.S. national boundaries, insular territories, states from states, eastern growth, western growth and explorers, Please give a look-see at User:TheVirginiaHistorian/sandbox/U.S.Territories on postage stamps, I would welcome your input. I've been adding free use stamps to Explorer biography articles. Thanks in advance.


 * January, 1978 there is a commemorative to explorer Captain Cook Issue landing at Hawaii. -- which cannot be admitted anywhere but on a mainspace article page, to my understanding.


 * On another matter, there is a free use U.S. stamp on Emancipation Proclamation from 1963 which can be used as an alternate at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. Less graceful than the Togo stamp, it will serve the purpose in the event the Togo stamp cannot be accepted. Thanks for your patience in any event. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, we need more good topical articles here. I will comment in more detail later. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting article. There is unlimited potential for topical articles here of the form "XXXX on stamps" though it is always possible somebody might challenge them as out of scope as not encyclopaedic. Regarding the Captain Cook stamp, if you find out where the original image (looks like an engraving) is from you could argue that it is out of copyright and what they have done with it (changing colour and adding text) doesn't reach the threshold of originality, you could then upload it to Commons on a PD OLD tag. If you argue it is fair use the test is harder, it has to be essential to the article. We generally try to avoid using fair use images where possible. They often are challanged or reduced in size. The images in the PR article are much stronger from the point of view of fair use now, but you may still find somebody challenges them, and indeed we shouldn't fill a whole article with fair use images if the article doesn't need to exist at all which you could argue is the case for any topical stamps article. Regaring the original PR article, there is still plenty to add on the early stamps used there and about old and modern postal history - rates, routes, airmail, postmarks etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Page move request
TVH, opinions are needed at Talk:Leif Ericson -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Image upgrades
Have just uploaded a better version of these stamps:
 * Puerto Rico election, commemorative, 1949 issue -- 15:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Connecticut tercentenary Commemorative, 1935 issue -- 20:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * '''Puerto Rico 8c commemorative, 1971 issue.JPG -- 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thirteenth Amendment 1940 U.S. stamp.1.jpg -- 17:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Florida statehood centenary 1945 U.S. stamp.1.jpg -- 01:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico La Fortaleza 3c 1937 issue.JPG -- 01:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * More to follow...

-- Gwillhickers (talk)
 * Thanks as always. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Stamp description and info
Hi TVH. Just some advice. Noticed that you've been placing the wrong or inadequate info in the stamp's description page sometimes. Take the File:San Juan 1971 U.S. stamp.1.jpg for example. In the Source field you put Arago: people, postage & the post. but didn't mention the U.S. Post office; In the Author field you put National Postal Museum, which is not the author -- the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is the author, and in this case, the designer, or 'author', is Walter Brooks. When the name of the actual stamp designer is not known, just noting the Bureau' is well enough. Also, while you're doing a great job providing the history behind the stamp, you might want to offer more information about the stamp itself whenever possible. (e.g. issued in sheets of fifty, with an initial printing of 130 million.) Remember, most of your readers will be stamp collectors, and they'd welcome this information as well as the history. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fixable right? I could go back onto the stamp page at Wikimedia commons and correct the stamps I mislabeled NPM vs. Bureau of Engraving and Printing?
 * I have no problem going back and adding to information for the interested reader...I started to note that issues came out in different numbers...and took interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 55 odd stamps in the U.S. territories on stamps category I uploaded mistakenly have been corrected to show the Bureau as author. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a few of the corrections myself when I upgraded some of the images. Yes, to edit the image info, click on the given image and then click on the Summary section below the image. In the mark up you will see description=, source= and author=, with the information following the equals sign. Just edit the info like you would any other markup and save. Easy stuff. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The best of Wikipedia is collaborative. thanks. Please note the discussion below with Philafrenzy on categorization...I would appreciate any insight. Based on his direction, I propose to launch into a categorization and clean up into subcategories for "History of the United States on stamps" -- I'd also like to put together an exhaustive category of "U.S. trains on stamps" next... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Territories of the United States on stamps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert R. Livingston, Roger Williams and Jason Lee (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) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Bibliography project
You are invited to join WikiProject Bibliographies. Just add your name along with any personal info you like in the Participants section. Then, if you like, add this markup   to your user page which will display the above user box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks interesting, but it may be more than I can handle right now. Good to know it's out there. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Images on Commons
Just a note to say that there is no need to add your US stamp scans to both Stamps and Stamps of the United States. The later is already a sub category of the former and somebody has to go in and remove them from Stamps. Could you correct the ones you have already done? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a logical idea. It assumes each stamp can go into only one subcategory or that each contributor will know all categories each stamp belongs to at the time of the upload, all subcategories are comprehensively made for all time, and no reader need have access to the entire collection with an alternative category in mind before creating a new category. Unfortunately I just followed the previous pattern of duplication found there. Is the ideal is to dial up a category and see no stamps --- only subcategories? Is there a policy reference to that end at Wikimedia Commons that I can refer to? Is that a Philately project?


 * I am reluctant to start the universal purge on my own, or initiate the innovative policy on my own contributions alone. But of course I will cease and desist at your request, as you have requested the other offenders and they comply. At the time I thought there was some value added to have a comprehensive survey of the larger category and I believed subcategories were for specialty interests as subsets of the larger category, which is another logical alternative to yours.


 * In the event the policy is adopted universally at Wikimedia Commons, there should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How would you propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons?


 * How can each subcategory contributor be encouraged to upload into multiple categories? Obviously the stamp of an explorer of New Jersey not only belongs in the 'U.S. territories on stamps' category, it belongs in the New Jersey category and the Explorer category, neither of which presently exists. But unless the image is in the general category, an editor creating the new category will not have access to all the stamps in the data base to draw from, but each subcategory has to be explored before comprehensively sighting the collection. How does that expedite subcategory formation, in such a way that it is a value added to the researcher, not a wiki-imposed restriction to the researcher? Which way of organizing is more open, which is more artificially closed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but this is not my idea. It's well established that we don't include images in both a sub category and a parent category unless there is a good reason. There would be 10000 stamp scans in Stamps if we did! There may be exceptions but this is not one of them. Just check how the images are currently organised to verify what I say. There probably is a page saying that on Commons but you just have to think of the alternative to see why it makes sense. It would give 20 million images all in one giant top level category. Why do you think there is so little in top level Stamps already? I haven't moved much out of there. Although the more refined categories do tend to hide material, as you suggest, as long as the structure is logical things can usually be found. Things definitely should be in more than one category but usually that is in parallel category trees just as you suggest with the New Jersey stamp.


 * You can include a US stamp in US Stamps of X year, X on stamps etc, what we don't do is put it in US stamps and Stamps at the same time. I don't make any of this up as I go along you know, it is all agreed by consensus over the years. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed consensus is the way to go, and that everything cannot be done at every level --- it is inherent in the nature of a collaborative project. thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There should be a template advising all contributors to delete images in a main category as they are included in a subcategory. It can be automatically placed both at each subcategory and at the main category as a subcategory is created. How should we propose that such coding be written and adopted at Wikimedia Commons? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know but it is not a bad idea. There may already be a bot or script running that does fix this. The difficulty is that there are exceptions and if you are going to remove categories you need to be sure and that is a judgement that requires the application of the human brain. Some would argue, I expect, that it is better to educate users not to do it in the first place. Try https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Community_portal Philafrenzy (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be the rationale for our template.


 * I have removed the "History of the United States on stamps" and "Stamps of the United States", leaving them in "U.S. territories on stamps" from two contributors uploads, File:00Kamehameha.jpg, File:Alaska territory 1937 U.S. stamp.tiff.


 * The best images from Category:Columbian Exposition Issue representing the issue should be taken out of “history of U.S. on stamps” and placed into U.S. territories on stamps, the duplicates left only on "Columbian Exposition", the remainder (cancelled, blocks) removed form "History of the United States on stamps", correct? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you remind me how to create a separate category:Territories 1937 Issue for the four related stamps? The Jamestown Exposition deserves like treatment. They would not be a subcategory, but a philately independent category akin to Category:Columbian Exposition Issue.


 * The Wikimedia Commons category "Trains on stamps" does not include a subcategory, so there is no link to add more. the sidebar Tools "special pages" is not applicable. On second thought, my interest is primarily "U.S. trains on stamps" as history, and that would be a subcategory of "History of the United States on stamps", correct? Thanks in advance for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed the categories on the two you mentioned to what I would say are the correct categories. The idea is that each category addresses a different aspect of the image, i.e. it's a stamp of the US from a particular year and also depicts a particular subject and also is printed by a particular printer etc. Each is a separate category tree. None is an immediate sub category of the other (they may be under a common parent category somewhere else). Philafrenzy (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN case closed
Hello, I am MrScorch6200, an assistant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed the request or were a major party in the case titled "Puerto Rico". Unfortunately, the case had to be speedy-closed regardless of whether discussion began or not because no volunteer accepted to mediate the case. When these issues have been addressed, you may refile the DRN request unless another noticeboard is more appropriate or otherwise directed. If you have questions please ask me on my talk page or the DRN talk page. Thank you! Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs)  00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)   This message has been sent as a courtesy using a standardized template.


 * Additional comments by volunteer: Consider Mediation or, perhaps better, Request for Comments if dispute resolution is still desired.

Galleries vs. Tables
I forgot to come back to you about this. Check out Help:Gallery tag and the packed mode in use on Underprint. There may not be an ideal solution but your articles are going to get very long if you only include a couple of images per table. Hope this helps. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks promising. The table, also recommended by a collaborating editor, allows larger images as an alternative to what I began using, the double or triple images aligned right and related text left. This is a third alternative to explore. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In cases where there are only two stamp images used in a table or gallery I would simply stack them into a 'double image' which you are familiar with and place them to the right or left. If the sections and text become crowded and sandwiched together simply place the '''

''' template at the end of the section. If this results with a few lines of white space at the end of the section that's okay. This is better than the sections all crammed together. White space occurs normally in printed media, and rightly so. Of course there are practical limits to everything but a couple of lines of white space won't be an 'issue' with most editors. If some individual should have an issue with 'clear' and it means they expect you to sandwich the sections and text back together, simply invoke the Ignore all rules policy since you are improving the format and readability of the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico on Stamps
Somebody has removed your non-free images, I assume because either they thought they were not essential to the article or there was no critical commentary about them. I think I warned you that these images were vulnerable to this sort of criticism though I must say I thought you would be fairly safe in that article. You could revert the deletion and argue that the images are essential because you discuss them in the article. As I have said, we really should be avoiding copyright images if at all possible. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Puerto Rico on stamps, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All persons pictured are dead. Vandalism is frowned upon at Wikipedia. desist. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't revert it again. You will get blocked. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vandals should be reported of course. I've never done that before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism though I understand why it seems that way to you. Read my message further up. Non-free (copyrighted) images are always a problem as all our content is supposed to be available for any sort of reuse and copyrighted materials don't fit with that mission. I have had several of mine deleted for the same reason. Put a message on the user's talk page that you wish to discuss the matter. Generally, if I were you, I would try to use only out of copyright images or you will face this sort of battle all the time. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of battle vandals always present, unreasoned, unsourced disruption of the purpose of the article. All persons pictured are dead. Puerto Rico on stamps pictures Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans on stamps. The copyrighted materials meet the standards of fair use on Wikipedia, although not Wikimedia Commons, that is what the template at Wikipedia explains at the stamp upload, a template not available at Wikimedia Commons. I suppose there could just be good faith confusion on the part of Werieth. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, read WP:NPA. Fair use means nothing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a far more strict policy on non-free media WP:NFCC. If you continue to abuse non-free media I will take this to ANI and request that you be blocked unit you demonstrate that you understand our policy on non-free content. If you want to discuss this we can do that either here or on the article talk page, but the files need to stay out of the article. Werieth (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * VirginiaHistorian: you need to talk about the image in detail in order to justify including it as a copyright image. If you expand the text in this way you could then try adding them back. It's not enough just to give basic details of the stamp and what is on it. It needs critical or evaluative discussion of the image. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And that needs to be sourced critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was, otherwise you could use free stamps to illustrate the article instead. Werieth (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Commentary to be forthcoming. Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth of the United States after 1978 and that is shown in part by Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans pictured on USPS stamps since 1978. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ping! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ping again! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what ping and ping again means. Is there an example of USPS licensing appropriately used at Wikipedia? Something that shows critical commentary, to show how important that particular stamp was.


 * There are stamps after 1978 which show Puerto Rican U.S. citizens to be a part of the United States in politics, baseball, literature and acting. They are honored in great American issues since 1978. Puerto Ricans voted in referendum to be admitted as a state, and the territorial legislature has applied for statehood. They are Americans.


 * The flags of the territories are featured in "Flags of our nation", meaning U.S. citizens in territories are honored by Joint Resolution of Congress picturing their flags in precisely the same way as citizens in states are pictured. They are not inferior, their territorial representation in Congress has more privileges attached than the territorial representation of the 19th century for places which subsequently became states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:American Samoa flag 2008 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086 Talk 04:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Antietam battle 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086 Talk 04:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Columbus Puerto Rico 1993 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086 Talk 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086 Talk 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Irish immigration 1999 stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Jose Ferrer 2012 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:New Orleans capture 2012 U.S. stamp.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Northern Marianas flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Unwarranted image deletions
TVH, I would recommend restoring the above images to their respective articles so they are not orphaned and eligible for deletion on that technicality and as I've said restore them as much as needed if deleted again. It's time to be bold. This all out assault on NFC stamp images is ridiculous, unwarranted and even malicious. Again, no one's interests have been compromised. THIS is the primary reason why there are fair use guidelines i.e.to protect WP legally and to not compromise the copyright holder's interest, and this has not occurred, because as you know, USPS allows their images to be used, per the discussions. Also, no one has articulated any actual policy violation regarding opinions on critical commentary. Altogether no one has cited any clear cut fair use violation, and all the criticism mostly lends it self to critical commentary, which is easily dealt with if it has to be. See my last post. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And Ill note such actions are likely to get you blocked for disruptive editing and violating WP:NFCC. Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy, several users myself and at least one other person familiar with stamps have provided guidance on how you need to proceed. Re-adding the files without providing sourced third party critical commentary and asserting the importance of the specific stamps will not end well for you. If you want to start making progress and stop going around in circles Ill be glad to ensure that you are going in the correct direction. Werieth (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. Kindly refrain from lies and slander here at Wikipedia. I have no dislike for policy and have repeatedly made reference to it to justify the inclusion of the images that have been unduly deleted without any discussion first. You have misrepresented the policy entirely and on that basis have been disruptive, not to mention dishonest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not lies or slander. How is File:Julia de Burgos 2010 U.S. stamp.1.jpg critical to the understanding of Puerto Rico on stamps when the only reference is Julia de Burgos in the Literary Arts series, honored as a poet, issued 2010 ? That comes no where close to meeting the fairly high bar for inclusion of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert :  Werieth, above, in full view of your response you said: Gwillhickers Has shown a distinct dislike against policy. Again, you try to substitute opinion not only for policy but for facts. Again, kindly refrain from asserting lies and slander and confine your comments to rational discussion. Thank you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you failed to understand policy doesnt mean that I am misrepresenting it, being dishonest or disruptive. Kindly remember WP:NPA further attacks will be escalated. Werieth (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the policy which would permit USPS fair use licensed images in topical articles. You insist by your own interests, a POV that there be only single stamp articles, where the stamps alone by themselves are significant. A topical article takes a significant topic and explores the multiple commemoratives a society has deemed notable and for what reasons. These are not to be dismissed as collections of stamps in the chronological sequence of their issue, without topical focus and analysis. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Topical articles

 * @Werieth, the commentary available at the Smithsonian Institute's National Postal Museum has been my primary source of critical analysis of each stamp. The analysis in my three authored pieces exceeded those of any other Wikipedia article noted USPS fair use license to date. I have extended the commentary from USPS source on a stamp at Puerto Rico on stamps for Julia de Burgos, a famous Puerto Rican poet and author celebrated as an American citizen as all Puerto Ricans are by birth. Government sources on government affairs are widely used at Wikipedia. The importance of the specific stamps is their expression of important cultural icons, defined by Joint Resolution of Congress to initiate the commemoration object of the stamps.


 * I am happy to follow your guidance in the case of Julia de Burgos and with others as time permits. This is important enhancement of the article from its stub beginnings, which I am committed to do. But again, I note the commentary on each of the three articles I contributed to is greater in total and more for each stamp than is found elsewhere on Wikipedia for USPS licensed images. Again, I believe I could profit from additional examples of USPS fair use images used in WP articles. But removing images from the best examples of commentary and context available to date seems disruptive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure we are on the same page, WP:NFCI. "Acceptable use. The following cases are a non-exhaustive list of established examples of acceptable use of non-free media on Wikipedia. Images. Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content.,, 3. Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not the subjects depicted on it."


 * In the article Puerto Rico on stamps the USPS commemorated the Puerto Rican poet Julia de Burgos on a postage stamp. The USPS fair use license applies to an image of the commemorative on Julia de Burgos identifying the stamp. It is not for the purposes of the biographical article Julia de Burgos depicting Ms. Burgos. If the image of the postage stamp depicted an ink well to represent the poet, the image of the entire postage stamp would still be used because it meets the NFCI standard #3 for non-free image use on Wikipedia, "For identification of the stamp or currency". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That particular example that you cite, and have already been told, applies to the usage of the stamp in the article about the stamp. What the USPS says or doesnt say about the usage of their files means very little beyond the fact that the files are either under a free or non-free license. In this case its a non-free license. The usage of the USPS and National Postal Museum are primary sources, and as such cannot really be used to provide critical commentary. Critical commentary comes from independent reliable third party sources. Also Ill note that if a particular stamp isnt notable enough for its own article what makes it critical to the understanding of the meta article? Werieth (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Insert :  Werieth, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, so here also, you are misrepresenting affairs. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Breast cancer research stamp proves you wrong. --M ASEM (t) 01:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Breast cancer research stamp has text on the stamp equivalent to that now provided for Julia de Burgos at Puerto Rico on stamps. The rest is about cancer research, where the stamp surplus money goes, not about the stamp. That is, the commentary for Julia de Burgos meets the standard set for stamp commentary found in Breast cancer research stamp. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know of such a page. TVH, perhaps this is taking it to the limit, I don't know for sure. Is the stamp in of itself notable enough to warrant its own article? Have more people admired and purchased this stamp then have people who have bought a given video game for which there is an article for? Every time the USPS comes out with a stamp, many millions of people across the country buy it. Can this be said for all the video games for which there are articles for? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that TVH had created the page, which has been around since 2007 with no issues of the type we typically see from MASEM and company. Wonder why they haven't attacked this stamp, and page? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You completely missed my point here and everywhere else. I never said the Breast cancer research stamp page is bad. In fact, that's a great use of a stamp where the stamp itself is clearly notable (not so much for its art but fore what the stamp was made for, to promote breast cancer research and return funds back to that). The stamp clearly passed WP:N, and per clearly meeting NFCI#3, using the non-free stamp to identify the stamp is fine. And whil e the de Burgos stamp itself is not notable, the text added that talks about how the illustration of the stamp alludes to her poetry is at least sufficient to assume on good faith that NFCC#8 is met. Note that "millions of people use the stamp" is not a measure of notability per WP:N, so most stamps and stamp series are not notable, though topical articles are reasonable. And you need to drop the stick about video games or personally attacking my own interests. WP is not paper so we can cover any topic that is notable, and we have to consider the use of non-free media across all topics equally. --M ASEM  (t) 05:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability

 * In response to my mistaken claim, No one has attempted to make an article for one stamp, you pointed out the page in question -- with one haughty sentence. You didn't go on to make any point. Once again, you misrepresent affairs.  Yes, the stamp is notable, and so are most others that commemorate famous people, statehood, etc.  Thank you. It is only your opinion that a given stamp may not be as notable, -- and who's yard stick are we using before an image is deleted and/or nominated for deletion on that basis? Yours? You have clearly demonstrated why we need to have a consensus to decide these matters, and not from the usual tag team that spends the bulk of their time trolling around hounding editors on the basis of an opinion about 'notability', critical commentary', etc. These are all ideas that need to be established by an objective consensus when some individual feels it's so bloody urgent to have the image deleted on the spot. --


 * Btw, if a stamp image is used as content under the heading of a greater subject, e.g.Puerto Rico on stamps, it doesn't necessarily have to be notable in its own right: Notablility : The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. (emphasis mine). The stamp doesn't have to be notable by itself to be used in an article, and has no bearing on NFCC to begin with. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NPM as third party

 * You have already been told -- is not a very collegial turn of phrase. The National Postal Museum is of the Smithsonian Institute. --- The policy applies to all articles, not just the articles of your interest. Topical articles are allowed, just as there are articles on individuals, there are articles on events made up of individuals. It may be that you are only interested in individuals in the Civil War, but the encyclopedia still has an article on the Civil War apart from the individuals. (But all good history is biography in a way.) --- In any case, there are articles about individual stamps, there are articles about topics on stamps, and both may use images of stamps by USPS fair use license according to the plain meaning of the WP policy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The National Postal Museum is a joint venture between the Smithsonian and USPS, which means that they are not a reliable third party source. I have never said that the meta articles are forbidden, in fact I actually have given advice on how to retain a limited number of non-free media in these articles (1-3 images instead of the previous 6). Justification for inclusion of non-free media is fairly high. In this case you are quoting a NFCI phrase outside of context. As it says just a few lines above, all files must meet all points of WP:NFCC in this case that hasnt happened. Werieth,  (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Insert : , Werieth, The National Postal Museum is indeed a third party. They are not the ones who designed and printed the stamps, and the organization is staffed by many learned historians and stamp collectors who provide information under the well recognized heading of the Smithsonian Institution and the National Postal Museum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NFCC in these articles is met more completely and comprehensively than any USPS licensed article example we have before us. Your advice has been followed, as time allows in trying to preserve the orphans you have created without prior discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not advice, its policy and I have cited two articles that have far more justification than any that you have made so far. USPS licensing is meaningless, the files are non-free and are treated as such. NFCC is no where near being met in any of the articles. Werieth (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you find an article in Wikipedia where you believe it to be so, USPS fair use license appropriately used? You have cited Inverted Jenny which is USPD free use, and an article without an image with less context and analysis than my three contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Breast cancer research stamp is one example that I have already pointed to. Again critical commentary is more than bare facts from the USPS or their museum, it requires third party discussion to be considered critical commentary. Werieth (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If there were an article on "Causes on stamps", it would have the essential information of the introduction in the article Breast cancer research stamp, and a link to the more in-depth article for that stamp, and a similarly more abbreviated description and analysis for the other stamps in the topic article. The standard for the topic article will be less than that of an individual stamp article, just as the information on individuals at American Civil War will be less than that of an individual's biography article.

The NPM is a WP:reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Smithsonian Institute affiliation with USPS does not taint it any more than does government grants to Harvard taint the Harvard Business Review as a source. In any case government sources are admitted as reliable sources at Wikipedia. You misrepresent WP:reliable source to suit your own POV against topical philately articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Breast cancer research stamp

 * It is a well done article. Is it yours? That's what I would like to grow to as an editor, to be able to command that kind of depth with some facility one day. If I can keep this dispute from getting personal, after a dispute resolution or two which I believe we need to have now for clarification sake, I'll beef up the articles and then reimport the images without disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats not my article. Feel free to "Beef up" the articles and provide more information and justification, but before you re-add the files let me know. Ill take a look and give some feedback. One other angle you can look into and see if there is enough material is how the portraile of PR has changed over time on stamps. If you can provide enough critical commentary and justification I don't see an issue with the article eventually containing 1-3 non-free files. Werieth (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So one of the items for dispute resolution would be the interpretation about what "limited" can mean. Limited picturing of a stamp issue series, limited as a proportion of free use stamp images in the article. It seems you would have it limited to a few stamps per article, regardless of the scope of USPS stamps on the subject (five territory flags of 55 issue), or regardless of how limited the topic is within each USPS issue (four battles of 30-odd Civil War commemorative stamps). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

test ping
@ This is a test. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure you can ping yourself. Werieth (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Did it work? Seems the courteous thing to do, especially at an insert during an extended discussion. I notice also that the @ sign is generated with the template, so another one is redundant. Just another dimension to the hobby here. Thanks (blush). And I am going to add the links to the USPS or Arago pages for stamps which cannot get fair use license images. as you suggested....sometimes NPM only features a stamp as "Scott catalogue" without any description, rats...


 * On another matter, how do I set up a new Wikimedia Commons Category, 'Trans-Mississippi Exposition Issue' so I have a place for the mint stamp images available for upload from NPM? What is there now, in the gallery 'Stamps of the United States', seems what was available from the uploader's private collection, and I would like to provide uploads of complete sets for Jamestown Exposition, Louisiana Purchase Exposition, etc... in one searchable place for each series. Do you have any suggestions for naming conventions? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah the ping worked, I am not familiar enough with stamps to give good advice on the naming, but I would include the year, series and stamp name in some manor. Werieth (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: Sources. In cases where the NPS doesn't offer sourcing info for a given stamp there is, as you know, Scott's Stamp catalog, and better still Scott's Specialized catalog. There is also Mystic Stamps' free catalog, issued I believe twice a year. It often has lot's of info on various stamps. Notable stamp collector/historian Bob Allen's 1847USA web site also offers basic reliable sourcing for a lot of issues. New issues I suspect will be more of a challenge. Happy hunting. I'll keep an eye peeled also. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page
TVH, I realize that a lot of the debate about NFC, stamps, etc, has found its way here. If you feel a given debate is better served on a different talk page, you could simply cut/paste the discussion to a more appropriate location and leave a note/link to that effect here. At least I won't object. Hope we are not crowding you. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The gist seems to be narrowing down to fair use in the topical pages. Four observations seem to work in concert: a. Stamps are widely circulated public media, descriptions of them can be derived from governmental (USPS) and foundation (Smithsonian Institute) sources. b. They are notable culturally by dint of their genesis through a Congressional Joint Resolution, and


 * c., if a stamp image is used as content under the heading of a greater subject, e.g.Puerto Rico on stamps, it doesn't necessarily have to be notable in its own right: Notablility : The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content. The stamp doesn't have to be notable by itself to be used in an article, and has no bearing on NFCC to begin with.


 * d. Visual information is processed differently than textual information, they are not equivalent, "a picture is worth a thousand words". In the case of an topical article titled "[subject] on stamps", the primary information to be conveyed is based on visual acquisition of images of the entire stamps. Textual description alone is neither equivalent nor sufficient for the purpose of the topical philately article.


 * It may be useful to make a cogent restatement of the argument and start a new subsection at WP:Media copyright questions, perhaps, with a non-provocative header to get away from the procedural issues. "Topical articles and USPS fair use".


 * But the issue of critical commentary remains to be fully answered, it seems fame or adverse notoriety is misunderstood as analysis. And analysis of the event pictured is dismissed out of hand, leaving the art critique as the sole standard. How to explain there are forests as topics as well as trees as stamps?


 * e. But the topical article takes the focus out of the image itself and into the context of the person or event pictured. That is, the critical commentary of a Keegan on the American Civil War battle is as applicable for the context in the topical article as that of an art curator's analysis of the art reproduced on the stamp commemorating the Battle of Antietam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also add that the stamp is notable (not that it always must be, per notability of content) simply because it is a U.S. postage stamp. Like currency, it is in public circulation. Many people ask for the specific commemorative stamp when at the P.O.. Re:Critical commentary. Certain individuals need to stop treating this like rocket science. As I  maintained before, all that need be said is that e.g. 'A given person' was noted for 'this deed and that' and was honored with a commemorative stamp on a given date or anniversary. If you can add more to that, this is fine, but not required. Unless the critical commentary is completely off topic or missing altogether, opting to delete these images on such opinionated basis should been done with discussion and consensus beforehand. Deleting such images in such an arrogant and self-appointed fashion has created nothing but animosity among many dozens of editors trying to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * see wp:Non-free content review new subsection, WMF mission. Coat of Many Colours has another take on educational mission, countered by Masem. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Puerto Rico flag 2011 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:United States
So you have no opinion on any of the proposed image changes/removals? I know you know it's there but you have yet to contribute your input. You might not have a vested interest in any of the images and you might not want to dive in to the crap-show of a discussion there but if you could just quickly contribute your opinion to them (what should stay, what should/should not be changed) it would be appreciated since the more editors give their input the faster we will come to some sort of consensus on at least some images, and the faster we can move on from those issues. Thank you. Cadiomals (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion from BHG's talk page, upon her request, has been copied to my talk page as linked above. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Virginia on stamps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 29th Infantry Division and William Clark (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) 2:02 am, 18 April 2014, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC−7)

Orphaned non-free image File:Roberto Clemente 1984 U.S. stamp.1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Roberto Clemente 1984 U.S. stamp.1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of Virginia on stamps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Yorktown (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) 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)