You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elizabeth Ferard. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jarkeld (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. However, please always leave comments at the BOTTOM of a talk page, not the top. In many cases, comments left at the top will not be noticed, as other editors look at the bottom for new messages. I have left a full reply for you at Talk:Community of St John Baptist, and I have mended the broken link which you reported. Do consider leaving some basic information about yourself on your own User Page - it helps editors to get to know each other (though it is not compulsory). Timothy TitusTalk To TT09:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment and edits. I hope this format is OK. As for my user/editor page, I agree that putting some basic information is important. I have a pet peeve about some users like someone with the handle PRGeek who make political edits and don't identify themselves, or make other edits using just a URL. That said, is there a simple template I can use? I love your page (and especially learning about WikiGnomes), but it's kind of complicated, presumably due to your extensive experience on wikipedia. Jweaver28 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally uploaded the Harriet Monsell article, which is awaiting review, since I'm not sure of the exact procedures. She founded the Community of St. John Baptist and is on the Anglican calendar for March 26.Jweaver28 (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few hours ago, I clicked on the link about "if your article is ready for creation ... 'click here.' Frankly, I was looking for a submit button, and didn't find it. I don't know if I'm supposed to cut and paste it again, or whether it takes a day or two to get in the queue, hence this talk page post.
Jweaver28 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The "click here" link should open an edit window containing a few lines of magic text. You then need to click the "Save page" button as normal. Once that's done, the draft should have a large coloured box at the bottom, and then it will be in the review queue. Perhaps give it another try, and I'll try to work out whether it has worked. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This morning, I clicked on the save page button again, and got the orangish box with the backlog notice like 12 hours plus ago--so either I've re-queued it again (if it actually takes a couple of days to get into the queue) or I've done something incorrectly again. Jweaver28 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found it (or more precisely my sandbox) on the last page of the Pending AFC queue, so the wait has begun. Frankly, I'm not sure why some queued articles have names attached and others like mine just sandboxes, though my quick survey indicates user experience might have something to do with it. Frankly, many of the ones with names attached seem to be PR pieces, which get the same cryptic bounce notices as my prior article (the worst problem of which I ultimately learned was formatting).Jweaver28 (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No official wikipedia editorial response yet, though checking the article I noticed that my sandbox is entitled: Article for Creation/Harriet O'Brien instead of Harriet Monsell. I don't know whether that was someone's incorrect title choice (contrary to the photo and first section) or automatic since the biography section heading (third article section) starts with her maiden name per the template I used. Jweaver28 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jweaver28, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Geewhiz (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, JWeaver. Editor Pluma created a page of FUN STUFF that includes building your user page. Click the edit page on any of your user pages to see how we built ours. You're free to copy-and-paste if you see anything you would like to use. When you need a break from writing and editing articles, take a break and build your page. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER03:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on Gifford Pinchot. I moved it to the bottom of the talk page, as talk pages often are archived from the top. Editors typically look first at the bottom of the page for new comments. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
Hi Jweaver28! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, J Weaver. When editing Wikipedia gets frustrating or you suffer from brain cramps or writers' block, take a break and have a bit of fun. Experienced editor Pluma created a page of fun stuff for his adoptees. Although he's too busy to actively support an adoptee right now, his page is still valuable. It'll give you ideas on fixing up your userpage. Look at the userpages of some other editors for ideas, too. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER01:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand Wikipedia's free knowledge with WDL resources!
Hi Jweaver28! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:
We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
Thanks for joining us at the edit-a-thon yesterday. I'm apt to call the event a rousing success and your contributions were a big help. I was able to crunch some of the data last night, and we accomplished a lot! Check out the meetup page if you're interested. I, JethroBTdrop me a line19:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jweaver28 - Thank you for your edits to Panic of 1819.
Do you know of any images from that event that might be used for the Infobox picture (besides the cover of Rothbard's book), i.e. and political cartoons from the period, official documents? I've looked around and discovered exactly nothing. None at Wiki Commons that look reliable or have suitable documentation. Any ideas?
36hourblock (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the article still needs lots of work, that I don't have the time to do. Still, I need to drop by the Pennsylvania Historical Society in the next week or so to check on the Edward Coles papers. Coles of course lived through that panic, and while many of his papers were left in Illinois and destroyed, he was one of the Pennsylvania Historical Society's founders and I think his son or daughter donated most of his remaining papers. Anyway, I suspect that if wikipedia commons has no images, that particular institution might, especially since the Bank of the United States was in Philadelphia. Plus, they might well be in GLAM. Anyway, I'll ask, but can't promise anything.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds intriguing. I've checked the PHS archives online - not an exhaustive search, mind you. My thanks, and best wishes in this endeavor. 36hourblock (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was at HSP yesterday and mentioned this. Frankly, their digital files aren't very easy to peruse online, IMHO, but the archivist yesterday mentioned that you could also file a research request and that they did have lots of cartoons, as well as the Biddle papers. That process which might take a while, but somehow the docs I wanted put online and mentioned a couple of months earlier in an email were in fact up and working when I arrived yesterday (and so included a page link re Edward Coles).Jweaver28 (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Chicago! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!
Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!
Hello!. Many thanks for your help on the discussion page of the article Monastery of Sant Jeroni de Cotalba. Historical inaccuracies have been fixed and tested in this article. Also I've add a new article in English about Alfonso of Aragon and Foix, founder of the monastery and more information and some corrections in the article Duke of Gandía has been added. The article about the Duke of Gandía was omitting information respect to the same article in Spanish. The Duke of Gandia starts in 1399 and has its origin in the "Manorialism of Gandía" founded in 1323 by James II of Aragon. The Borgia were not really the first Dukes of Gandia as you can see now in the article with the right information. Thanks for your kind help!. --Valencian (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jweaver28! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Hi. Online genealogy websites, like the one you are using to make revisions at Sabine Hill and Nathaniel Green Taylor, are not reliable sources for Wikipedia, with good reason. They can be useful in tracking down reliable information, but they are prone to having errors. We shouldn't rely on them for Wikipedia sources.
We might disagree on the value of online geneology sites vs books such as that of Peter Taylor. I used the online site for its reference, albeit without publisher or page number, to a local history of Carter County to which I don't have access. It thus might very well be a more reliable source than the boosterish Taylor book at the NYT site, which doesn't seem useful in tracking down reliable information IMHO, particularly the link between the Landons. For what it's worth, I wasn't finished with my parallel edits by the time you quickly caught what should've been a disambiguation page link. Perhaps we both agree that a page should be created for General Nathaniel Taylor or his wife Polly (who might well have been the matriarch of Sabine Hill) or for the ironmaster Landon Carter, for whom apparently Carter County Tennessee is named. That Landon might well be a grandson or other relation of the Landon Carter more famous for his Williamsburg connections, and thus the similarity noticed in the HABS for Sabine Hill, but I don't have the time to track it down, only point people toward the gap. That the Taylors kept going back to Virginia for education and marriage tends to indicate they are a branch of the FFV Taylors, who also spread into Kentucky.Jweaver28 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the obsessive interest that many Virginians have with family lineage. It's a characteristic that distinguishes Virginians from people in the other 49 U.S. states.
It's clear from sources that the Carters and Taylors of Carter County came from Virginia (anyway, if you are familiar with the geography, including topography, it's almost obvious that anyone who settled on the frontier in Carter County would have come from Virginia). Also, the Taylor parentage in Virginia is reasonably well documented, and reliable sources have speculated on the relationship between the Carter County Carters and the Virginia Carters, including Landon Carter of Virginia. It seems to me that reporting on that published speculation is relevant to the not-yet-written articles about the earliest Carters in Carter County (because it can be assumed that their power and influence was strongly derived from family), but I don't think it should be of more than peripheral interest in biographies of people several generations later -- particularly given the evidence that later generations in these Tennessee families were largely indifferent to their family backgrounds. Rather than burdening biographical articles like Nathaniel Green Taylor with long genealogical recitations, I can see merit in creating family articles -- Taft family is an example of such. (However, there will be some interesting disambiguation issues with Carter Family, whose home was not very far from Carter County, Tennessee!)
The Peter Taylor book that you disparage is a biography published by LSU Press, which is a respectable publisher. See Google Books for details. The family history content in that book is there to establish the peculiarities of the subject's family background, and it's not as exhaustively researched as Peter Taylor's life, but it's far better than much of what I found on genealogical websites. The Cox book on the East Tennessee Taylors appears to be very thoroughly researched, but it's a bit tainted due to its being published by iUniverse. It also gives a less flattering view of its subjects than pretty much any of the other sources.
Having said all that, I should also let you know that I have no particular interest in researching either the Carters or the Taylors. I got into this topic only so that I could convert an embarrassingly deficient stub into something like a decent article. It's always nice to meet other contributors like you are committed to delving into a subject, rather than creating pages like that one, which ultimately make Wikipedia look bad. I expect we will continue to intersect. Happy editing! --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I look forward to intersecting with you (or even meeting) some day, though I have never yet visited Tennessee. I know what you mean about embarrassingly bad articles. Nice job on bringing that stub up to snuff. Maybe it will spur some kind of public use of the site, rather than letting it (and its history) molder into oblivion. I also hope that our trail on the talk page might interest someone with boots on the ground, so as to speak, in Carter County to put up a page for the General, or Polly, or ironmaster Landon. As for me, somewhere on my todo list is bringing the page on Spencer Roane up to snuff, so I was fascinated to learn that he also has links in Carter County, though his grave's much further up the Great Wagon Road (I-81) in Bath County, Virginia.
For what its worth, I didn't pick up the LSU press in looking at the Google books page, and I hope it citechecked the work. To my quick glance, it seemed a lot like the bio of Carter Braxton (Landon Carter's nephew and a Virginia Taylor family ally but basically a generation before Spencer Roane and his Taylor friends), which the wikipedia page initially praised, but when I started checking the footnotes, they didn't support the statements to which they were attached -- hence my first use of the ref within ref structure I used with the geneology cite here that had a long quote from an apparently legit book. That Braxton biographer (now deceased) turned out to have been a PR guy, and while the press called itself University Press (and I believe from the College Park, Maryland suburb of D.C.) the close examination seemed to make it akin to a family vanity piece.
For what it's worth, by the 19th century, as Edmund Pendleton (whose relatives married Taylors and one served with and settled near General Nathaniel Greene in Georgia) and Carter Braxton died off (after marrying into other FFV families like the Capertons of West Virginia) the FFV aristocracy seemed to have continued to operate mostly on a who-you-are-related-to basis, which might have resulted in the genealogical focus you noticed. At the risk of possibly offending you or that area of Tennessee, it doesn't seem like a Hatfields and McCoys kind of thing, but rather the crux of the social power structure, with the "outs" really out (as in not voting, not receiving services, etc no matter what political historians might write). I doubt the aristocrats saw it as corruption, as George Mason might've called it early in that era, and the Tafts likewise toward the end, but IMHO it led to economic disaster in Virginia (which many managed to leave) and probably where they moved. Anyhow, maybe someday I'll be able to drive down I-95 and visit Chiswell, Virginia and the old route into Tennessee! Jweaver28 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you infer, Tennessee (not my native state, mine you) definitely has a good-old-boy power structure. Families like the Taylors probably had little difficulty maintaining elite status in the 19th century; not only did they have money, but they had vastly better education than the majority of their neighbors. Still, members of the more recent generations of the Taylor family, notably Robert Love Taylor (judge), are spoken of with great respect in these parts by people who generally despair of the good old boy power structure.
FYI: I-81 is the road you need to take to approximate the historic route from Virginia to Tennessee... I-95 will lead you to the Carolinas... --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jweaver28, thank you for adding the Saint's feast days according to the American Episcopal and Anglican versions. However, please make sure that the feast days added are at least exclusive to its Anglican or Episcopal version. For instance, John Henry Newman have at least three versions of his own feast day, October 9 (Roman Catholic), August 11 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics), and American Episcopal, as you have mentioned. If cases like this appear, it is best to use only the most notable version (usually the Roman Catholic version) and leave the minor observance appears as a link in the Saint's main article or with a link (such as the Eastern Orthodox liturgics case), in John Newman case it appears in the link August 11 (Eastern Orthodox liturgics).
This is to avoid redundancy, because some saints may have more than 5 feast days from various Christian minor sects. Adding all these minor sects feast day version would be too much for H&O section. So if you see a popular saints like John Henry Newman, first check whether the person had another major feast day in its own article. If not, then you are save to add the American Episcopal or Anglican version of the feast day.
Thanks for the comment, but I disagree, particularly that the Roman Catholic is the "most notable" calendar version. I understand (and have no problem with) the practice of having a daily link to the Eastern Orthodox liturgics (which even in that practice and having grown up Russian Orthodox IMHO can be pretty obscure). However, to the extent that Anglican and Roman Catholic feast days differ, I think including both can be important, especially for English saints like Thomas More and John Henry Newman. Furthermore, I've noticed the Holidays & Observance practice thus far has been to include the multiple versions of Roman Catholic feast days, particularly for the saints whose days were moved in 1969 (the post-Vatican II reforms). Thus, I'm a little concerned that your suggestion might reflect a little Roman exclusivity or bias at odds with Wikipedia policies, or the whole purpose of having that Holidays & Observances section.
I prefer to think that this particular timing relates to my editing the Church of England sections of the still-problematic John Henry Newman article a week ago, rather than two days ago changing a couple of February H&O entries that implied that Anglican commemorations were not Christian(!) Furthermore, the John Henry Newman article specifically referenced under the anti-redundancy rationale is IMHO one Wikipedia's more problematic articles in part because some parts still read like Catholic propaganda--plus, the very lengthy text fails to even mention that the Church of England honors Bishop Newman on August 11--and I don't have the time or temerity to touch it further!
I really appreciate your including the anti-advertising box/script/logo on your talk page, but since I don't claim mastery of Wikipedia arcana, I apologize in advance if the requested Talkback message attempt doesn't work.Jweaver28 (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't know that much about Church of England, so I will believe your additions of Anglican feast days e.g. Thomas More and John Henry Newman (I didn't delete John Newman from August did I?). It is better to represent an English saint with the Anglican version of his feast day after all, right(?). Also, I never said anything about Roman Catholic's feast days being the most notable versions of all feast days. They are usually the most notable though, after all, they have the most congregations in the world. The notability is something to be considered while adding days into H&O (that's why city's birthday, regional days, and minor awareness observances are not included). One suggestion, when adding an Anglican version of a particular saint' feast day, please make sure that the Anglican version of the feast day is included in the main article of the particular saint. Otherwise, people will delete it.
I do noticed the inconsistencies on some Catholic saints, I can't recall one, but I believe there are more than... 10? (wild guess). Regarding the pre-1969 feast days, the best thing to do is to remove the former version, unless the observances have at least some degree of modern impact (defunct or other historic observances should not be placed in the H&O). There are other inconsistencies in other types of H&O entries as well (e.g. Roman festival, should be gone, but they keep reappearing), but at least the H&O section are much better now than they were in the past, before the reorganization of the H&O. We're still cleaning them up regularly.
Please understand that the main intention is to make H&O section more consistent with the loosely written rule (to encourage addition of observations, but keeping them well-contained). If you are interested, you can check the unofficial proposed guideline of the H&O, devised back then when the major reorganization of the H&O occured.
One more thing, try to keep your additional saint days sorted alphabetically :)
Thanks for your quick response and the link to the proposed H&O guidelines. Maybe I should comment on them, but I also noticed they have been proposed since 2011 and not adopted, so I don't know how binding they are. Oddly enough, the only wikimania I attended was the one after this proposal, and I don't remember hearing anything about it. Maybe they weren't adopted or got lost as unnecessary?
My philosophy is that not everything has to be as neat as you suggest. I don't think the clutter is as bad as you fear. Thus, I think eliminating the pre-1969 links is a bad idea, ditto with the links to Protestant and Catholic feast days where they differ. BTW, the 1969 Roman changes were massive (i.e. well over 100 changes, and maybe several hundred). Given my historical rather than devotional bent in checking out the H&O daily entries, I like reminders of both the old and new feast days. Plus, there are millions of Anglicans and Lutherans as well as traditionalist Catholics (who still don't accept Vatican II's reforms), so I think their observances are as significant as some local observances allowed in H&O.
Moreover, sometimes knowing the older feast day (or a the different choices between Protestant councils and the Vatican congregation) makes historical events more understandable. Unfortunately, I don't have a good example right at the tip of my tongue, so as to speak. Still, saints' celebrations were important both as holidays in past centuries as well as for naming purposes (especially in the Catholic world--that's probably why Casimir Pulaski was named after St. Casimir to use a recent but imperfect example explaining Illinois' Casimir Pulaski Day yesterday--and I don't envy whoever has or might take on the task of changing it to whatever day is the first March Monday, or maybe that's the clutter you're really worried about). If/when I remember or find a better example, I'll be able to go back and comment on the H&O proposal link. In any event, I'm also fascinated sometimes by the choices different churches make to link feast days to different events, other than the normal death date (dies natalis), such as translations (tho many if not most of those were eliminated in the Vatican II reforms) and dates of ordination/consecration.
As for the dates I'm linking, usually I go by the linked calendars for the Church of England, Episcopal Church and Lutheran Church in the "See also" section of the Calendar of Saints, presumably added by someone more knowledgeable than me. For what it's worth, the Episcopal Church meets in General Convention every 2 years and such conventions can add or remove calendar entries, but that's not a major order of business. I've created a couple of wikipedia pages for previously red links, and added a couple of saints info boxes, but don't always read the linked entry closely, much less edit it. I'll try to at least check for the link in the future, but I don't have any particular desire to touch John Henry Newman again, even to add a simple text mention. Also, my practice was to add the Protestant feast days just before the Eastern Orthodox entry, if they weren't already mentioned because of joint observance with Catholicism. I'll add them alphabetically instead if you like.
As for the talk/talkback link, I don't know exactly how they work, nor do I have the time to find out. I'm not on wikipedia every day, but when you (or DPL bot!) add something to this page, I do notice the red talk notice/reminder at the top of pages after I sign in to edit. I don't know if that's mutual, so I'll go to your talkback page and leave a specific reminder like I did Sunday night.Jweaver28 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To my great chagrin, I noticed just now that I incorrectly linked a page for today, as did the Episcopal calendar wikipage. Seems there were two Paul Cuffees, both spiritually active, at least part native American and living in the Revolutionary War/War of 1812 era. The page for the correct one hasn't yet been created. Tough too because I really like the current one and thought it correct as did the calendar page's creator apparently! Shades of the two saintly John Roberts! Unfortunately, I'm already late this morning, so won't be able to clean my sandbox and create the correct page until this evening.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JWeaver28, you don't have to follow the proposed H&O link I gave to you, it's unofficial. It was used during the major clean up back then by few users to 'moderate' any edit during the long period of 365 days DOY revision. However, you do need to follow the more binding official guideline for H&O, which stated that only holidays that are currently observed can be added to H&O. This has become a major problem in the past, not just to the Christian feast days, but also to other type of observances.
The whole H&O issue is a long story. When people started adding irrelevant holidays - e.g. ancient Greco-Roman holidays (their calendar are lunisolar, not identical with modern calendar), observances whom dates are changed (Tartan Day, Daniel Boone Day, Yugoslavian Youth Day, and so on), Julian calendar versions (Presidents-Washington Day, and Many Christian feast days), etc - the H&O became not only cluttered, it was also confusing and wrong. Wikipedia has reached a consensus that defunct observances should not be added into H&O, which may include for instance, relating to your issue, the Julian calendar version of a feast day (which sometimes the Anglicans (and Orthodox) prefer to use). But don't forget, exceptions do happen as well, on the basis of notability.
I am like you, there's still an urge in me to add defunct observances e.g. Lupercalia, Elaphebolia, or first day of the Republican calendar year since I didn't mind about clutter and believe that the more info shared, the better it is. But for the H&O section, it is best to follow the existing and - short but wise - rule. That doesn't mean you can't add defunct observances, you can still add those days in its own article. That's why articles e.g. Republican Calendar name days, Roman festivals, and in your case, Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church), are there. Of course you can ask for third opinion in DOY's talk page or to some active users in DOY regulation if you feel that you need to express your concern over the current rule. Feel free to ask me anything, I'll try to help between my schedule.--Rochelimit (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick lunchtime look at wikipedia and noticed your reply. I agree with most of your examples, and sorry I don't have time right now to look at the current H&O guidelines link. However, it seems to me that if Anglicans or Lutherans continue to use what had been the Catholic feast day, that both remain in current use and could be in H&O. H&O does have lots and lots of saints taken off the Roman calendar in 1969, although later revisions noted that their observance is not prohibited (to go legalistic in this matter). Also, I wasn't aware of the Roman calendar lunar issue, but IMHO we do need a link to the Ides of March (LOL!). The references to Lupercalia, etc. are important for understanding history, and in modern times it's important to know when Ramadan starts (no matter what religion you are, and though such is necessarily lunar based).
Some people read Obituaries in their daily newspaper, I usually check out the Wikipedia daily page, concentrating on historical anniversaries at the top and H&O at the bottom. Maybe it's my bias or age, but I rarely look at birth days after my own on the anniversary day page, since I'm not interested in the huge numbers of links to birthdays (and death days) of not-so-historically-significant rock musicians and footballers. Of course if I hadn't put in the Cuffee link, I wouldn't have made the corrections I did (or looked at the Talk page where they were noted as needed back in 2011), and now it's on my new-page-needed radar, for whatever that's worth. My point is that apparently is an important article according to the Talk page, as for example was the problematic Frederick Douglass article I happened upon and cleaned up a bit last week.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the moon, alas both lunar and lunisolar calendar are often very traditional in the way they decide the beginning of their month (they usually have their own official board (of priests, etc.) to decide when is the first day of the month, e.g. Muslim's hilal rule; even until now Muslim people started their Ramadan on different dates, depending on the visibility of the moon). As of now, the most consistent calendar is still the Western / Christian / Solar calendar and so H&O only used that. Every year people will always add Ramadan or Holi or Chinese New Year to H&O, but these will be quickly erased. At least Wikipedia shows these observances in the "On this day" section of the main page, so it's still win-win.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note (and I'll go to your page too in case going up a couple of levels doesn't generate a notice when you log in) about today's H&Os. First, glad to see the "cult suppressed" notation about Simon of Trent, since I personally believe talking about those boy saints who may have been a reflection of local anti-Semitism is proper. As you'll notice, I added links about the three men remembered today by the Church of England between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mentions, since I thought interspersing them with the Catholic might add confusion. However, the memorials don't really seem linked, and if you feel alphabetical is better, I have no problem with that either. The widest commemoration is for Archbishop Romero, who is also remembered today by many Lutherans as well as Episcopalians in the USA. However, I'm not sure of the Catholic protocols for Servants of God so I didn't add that qualifier to H&O, but did add mention of the wider Christian memorials in the lede to Romero's article. Also, for all I know Romero may be remembered jointly with Catherine of Vadstena by Swedish and other Nordic Lutherans. Plus, his assassination might be another cause of or related to the Argentinian civil remembrance (since it happened on the 4th anniversary of the Argentine coup, which didn't become an Argentine holiday until its 30th anniversary).Jweaver28 (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with your additions. However, I have mixed feeling with Paul Couturier and with Walter Hilton which I think are minor (especially Walter Hilton with his 2 versions of feast days).
H&O is very sensitive with these feast days "variations", if a person had multiple feast days, I suggest to add only one with the most notable commemoration. Calendar of saints lists are available, so H&O doesn't have to include all these not notable saints.--Rochelimit (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Archbishop Oscar Romero is more noted today than Waler Hilton or Paul Couturier, but think that all are a lot more relevant than a lot of the 3rd and 4th century martyr saints listed on H&O, and that their spirituality deserves such a mention. At first I thought your two feast days comment related to the translation of his feast because of Lent in the geographic area of his service (tho not in the wider church), which is common to Catholicism, and also relevant to Bishop Charles Brent last week. Frankly, adding just one observance to a historically noteworthy figure (or number of figures) doesn't annoy me. I don't consider it a variation, because the summertime feast day is also a local festival--just look at the number of truly minor saints listed on August 11 for example. One of them St. Philomena is still listed without qualification, though almost everyone agrees that was a hoax and she was thus taken off the Roman calendar even before the post-Vatican II cleanup. Nonetheless, honoring Philomena says a lot about that particular Italian region (Mugnano del Cardinale) and Italy's socio-political changes in the 19th century, even if spiritually her festival seems closer to the Gilroy Garlic Festival in late July than the liturgical commemorations of those who remain on the liturgical calendars.
Then I realized that Hilton's part of a multiple listing, which the Lutheran and Episcopal churches use to honor similar people who collectively honor God in their particular work--like the musicians upcoming on April 6. Frankly, I'm not a theologian, but think these collective listings important, and I'd rather list them all on one line, per the practice of those Protestant denominations, because that highlights their similarity (and the spiritual importance of their work) rather than interspersing them alphabetically. That's why I started adding the Protestant commemorations before the Eastern Orthodox, because they're a different system, but more public.
That also deals with the other problem I'm having, because especially on the Protestant calendars, what Catholics might consider Servants of God (like Paul Couturier, or Oscar Romero) have familiar and surnames, so another choice has become alphabetization by first or last names. That's also somewhat the issue for yesterday's addition (adding Martin Luther King to H&O on his Episcopal feast day, when the Lutheran is the anniversary of his birth and the civil commemoration keeps moving around since it's the third Monday in January). I'm looking forward to any comments you may have, and am also linking this response to your page, since the version of this comment I posted a few of days ago somehow lost the last half sentence (as well as seemed more wordy before I split it into paragraphs), and the quadruple artists Lutheran feast day mentioned is coming up in a couple of days.Jweaver28 (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too many indentations, but I wanted to mention another issue that I've just encountered for May 4. The Church of England now remembers all English martyrs of the Reformation era on that date (Catholic and Protestant) so I've just cut and pasted the links (with several different sublinks, unfortunately) from the CoE liturgical calendar page onto H&O. I'm not sure how else to do it, and I think the ecumenism important. I'll note that I didn't do the Lutheran artists' commemoration mentioned above for caution's sake/want of reply, but I'll post a link on Rochelimit's page.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jweaver 28. I usually against this minor English celebrations, but I included it within the Calendar Feast Day anyway because I don't have any reason to remove it. I fixed the link as well, reducing the unnecessary links e.g. England, saints, etc. The page Calendar of saints (Church of England) is important.--Rochelimit (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This morning I added the joint feastdays of J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel (with Henry Purcell on the Episcopal calendar and Heinrich Schütz; on the Lutheran). I'll put a note on your page, but prefer not to separate them, per both Protestant denominations practice. Oddly, although the anniversary of Bach's death seems the occasion for the memorial to church musicians, the mention was not in his wikipedia article, so I added it, as well as mentioned on its talk page that such was already included in the articles for the other musicians, and may have been removed for aesthetic or other reasons from the problematic Bach article.Jweaver28 (talk) 11
49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm usually against these minor observances, I really prefer you to put links to articles Calendar of saints (Episcopal Church), Calendar of Saints (Lutheran), or Calendar of saints (Church of England), especially if they are conflicting with existing major feast day (usually Roman Catholic's). I can't really say no to Bach and Handel, because they are not repeated in any version of the calendars; I do have a bit of a problem for Schutz and Purcell, although I can't really say no for these either. But then again, what is notable is a matter of opinion, especially with the - IMO - overly Anglo-oriented English Wikipedia (I'm talking about some small village celebrations in Spain (Corpus Christi, e.g. Baby jumping) that seem to gain momentum these days, but hasn't gone into that level of notability usually accepted with English Wikipedia). We'll see what happened later. BTW my principle is that if duplicates conflict with existing major feast day, I will certainly delete the least notable one.--Rochelimit (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC
I agree about the inclusion of minor festivals, which I suspect are often more for tourism/advertising purposes than Anglo-centric. However, Corpus Christi is Spain has been very big for centuries, is of course not Anglo, and is celebrated either on a Thursday or translated to Sunday (I don't remember which nor do I want to look for my old photos of the procession of giant heads when I was on the camino in either Leon or Astorga--both historic cities--since I see corpus' inclusion as governed/barred by the moveable date policy). My concern with the H&O as you or someone else is shaping it is its overly Roman Catholic bias (actually pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic bias). The last couple of days are a good example, with Alfonsus Ligouri mentioned on both. By contrast, someone other than I added the feast of Joseph of Arimathea to July 31 (mentioning both Orthodox and Lutheran observances on that date), and someone else has now removed it. I have limited time, and I didn't add him to August 1 (the Episcopal date), just corrected the article's text that morning, noticing that while H&O doesn't mention him on August 31 (his current Roman feast day according to the article), H&O does mention him on March 17 (his superceded feast day, and labels it "Western Church"). IMHO, Joseph of Arimathea is a heavyweight, since he's mentioned in the gospels (tho the article doesn't now have a separate section highlighting that, and the issue seems contentious on the talk page). If the Eastern Orthodox want just a link to their calendars, which are at least as long as (if not longer than), the old Catholic calendar, I'm not going to argue with them. But the Protestant calendars are not only shorter, but they also sometimes have a different philosophy, honoring specific professions via agglomerations of several noteworthy people, like Monday's church musicians. IMHO if individuals as relatively minor as Alfonsus Ligouri and Alexis of Rome get 2 feast days each, certainly Joseph of Arimathea should be allowed a couple or 3. Noone knows the date that Joseph died, which IMHO led to his commemoration on different days in different churches. Yes, his feast day was probably moved from March 17 out of respect for St. Patrick rather than the obscure and probably mythical Alexis of Rome (whom the article says was removed from the Roman calendar for July 17, but I'm not begrudging his mention on March 17).Jweaver28 (talk) 11:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the biography heading and elevated the subheadings when I couldn't seem to get to the second subsection to edit it. Elevating them also makes the bio easier to access on a phone or mobile device. I don't think I'll have time to edit it more today or in the near future, but wanted to mention somewhere that I'm a little surprised it's listed as C class, since the internal cites seem real and varied, it has pictures, etc. IMHO, it might be good for a DYK someday, but I have no idea how that nomination process works.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of mobile devices as I don't really use them, so thanks for pointing that out. I think the DYK process would be difficult, as the article would have to be expanded fivefold to earn a nomination (that's a lot, I think), but I agree it could bump up beyond C-class eventually, particularly with a few more citations. Your clean-up work definitely made a difference. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Harriet Starr Cannon) has been reviewed!
Although I appreciate your attempting to tighten the Luis Kemnitzer article, his activism at Bohemian Grove were restricted to attempting to distribute condoms to attendees. Bohemian Grove is not a rock festival, it's a private campground where the super-rich and super-powerful can meet out of the public eye. Kemnitzer did not go in and hand out condoms; he stood by the gates as the limos went in, and offered condoms to the passengers (implying that they would be needed). Read the source I cited. DS (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday at the Wiknic, if I remember correctly, we had a conversation about the disambiguation tool not working. It appears that the Disambiguation tools and a few others like RefLinks were all maintained by User:Dispenser. The tools aren't under a free license and weren't moved to Labs before Toolserver was shut down. Dispenser would like 24 TB of space for his tools, which the WMF is unwilling to give him. I'm unaware if he is willing to license them under a free license or not. Anyhow, I wonder if this might be the root of the problem you described. Zell Faze (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's the problem. Saturday I was just checking that I had made all the corrections from last week's disambiguation list, and encountered that weird message and the broken tool. Today's disambiguation list doesn't include the DAB tool link. That makes the cleanup process a little more time consuming, so I hope Dispenser gets his space. BTW, thanks for organizing the Wiknic--I enjoy Frederick and it has a great library--though that and trying to solve a phone problem kept me from the Monocacy park until the main programs had ended.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to celebrate composers such as Bach and Schütz, as expressed on Talk:Bach, please get the name Schütz right, it's not Schutz. Handel vs. Händel is a different story because he moved to England. See also, bottom right, pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Cornelius Hill) has been reviewed!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for creating the article. The citation format could be improved by using the {{citation}} style (e.g. Cite book or Cite web). Also, since you cite one source many times, you might use Template:Rp to denote page #.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
I am another host in the tearoom and I noticed your question since I am from Western Pennsylvania. I have looked at the Nemacolin's Path article and found it quite fascinating. You did a great job and your article has the potential of becoming even better. Would you like me to help find more references for you?
Great idea. I've known about this route of native peoples since I lived in the Delaware valley years ago, but only last year in Illinois or Virginia came across Nemacolin's name, when correcting the Great Indian Warpath entry with respect to the mid-Atlantic states. Now, both of my laptops are fritzy, and I have family responsibilities, so I am having problems even finding the page numbers for a couple of the refs I found two and three days ago when trying to put this up as well as correct the Thomas Cresap article. I'd especially like to include a photo, but couldn't use the one of the statue I ref'd b/c of obvious copyright issues.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
February 6–8: The third annual ArtBytes Hackathon at the Walters Art Museum! This year Wikimedia DC is partnering with the Walters for a hack-a-thon at the intersection of art and technology, and I would like to see Wikimedia well represented.
February 11: The monthly WikiSalon, same place as usual. RSVP on Meetup or just show up!
February 15: Wiki Loves Small Museums in Ocean City. Mary Mark Ockerbloom, with support from Wikimedia DC, will be leading a workshop at the Small Museum Association Conference on how they can contribute to Wikipedia. Tons of representatives from GLAM institutions will be present, and we are looking for volunteers. If you would like to help out, check out "Information for Volunteers".
I am also pleased to announce events for Wikimedia DC Black History Month with Howard University and NPR. Details on those events soon.
If you have any questions or have any requests, please email me at james.harewikimediadc.org.
Not even a week ago I sent out a message talking about upcoming events in DC. Guess what? There are more events coming up in February.
First, as a reminder, there is a WikiSalon on February 11 (RSVP here or just show up) and Wiki Loves Small Museums at the Small Museum Association Conference on February 15 (more information here).
Now, I am very pleased to announce:
Tuesday, February 17 from 10 AM to 3 PM there will be #WikiTurgy at the University of Maryland. Join fellow theatre enthusiasts for a “mass act of public dramaturgy!”
Thursday, February 19 from 10 AM to 4 PM we are hosting the Howard University Black History Edit-a-Thon. We are working in partnership with the Moorland-Spingarn Research Center to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of African-American and African diasporic history.
Tuesday, February 24 from 6 PM to 8 PM we have the Black History Month “First Edit” at NPR. Help improve Wikipedia and help others make their first edit to Wikipedia!
Finally, our monthly dinner meetup is on Saturday, February 28.
There is going to be a lot going on, and I hope you can come to some of the events!
If you have any questions or need any special accommodations, please let me know.
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for quiet excellence in article space. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
I happen to have Jweaver28's sandbox on my watchlist, after giving her a hand with it some time back. Said sandbox moves regularly into article space, as Jweaver28 calmly creates one article after another on minor historical figures. These sort of additions are exactly the work that helps make Wikipedia better, and I think it's about time Jweaver28 was recognised for her efforts. She's one of those perfect editors who just quietly gets on with it, without getting into fights or dragging folk to ANI, without getting mired in wikipolitics and policy interpretation. I wish we had more editors like her.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
There are no such things as "minor" historical figures who meet our notability requirements. And I've repeatedly heard from several people our "historical" content is among our worst, largely because so few people really want to work on developing it. Thank you very much for working in this often largely neglected area of the project. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! A couple of weeks ago, you should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete to receive access to HeinOnline. If you did not receive the email, please let me know. Otherwise, please complete this form as soon as possible so we can process your request. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I replied several days ago via hotmail to the email you sent me. I've been swamped with other matters and haven't had time for wikipedia, and so haven't even considered using HeinOnline. I also relayed my concern that HeinOnline requires a link to a gmail account, especially in light of a recent NPR radio program I heard concerning google's de facto lack of privacy protection, or easy hackability/linkages once such is disclosed. I use hotmail for my wikipedia matters, and restrict my google account to other legal matters. Why require a gmail account?Jweaver28 (talk) 10:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jweaver, sorry, I did not receive any email response from you. We don't require a link to a Gmail account - you should be able to complete the form without one, you just need a valid email from any provider. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh -- but the name is/was redlinked at that time (see this diff) -- thus subject to automatic removal by any editor or bot. Why is/was it redlinked? Let me check it out. (Also don't get the Kayla Mueller reference but let's put that aside for now.) Quis separabit?13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. It looks like you were the primary author of the Robert Hallowell Gardiner III article. Several passages in this article are extremely confusing. It would be very helpful if you could review the comments I noted in the text and clarify these points. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you once “took a whack at this poor article” (Frederick Denison Maurice). I have spent several weeks almost full time preparing for a major revision of the article. More specific reasons for my revision are posted on Talk:Frederick Denison Maurice and the draft revision is posted on User:Vejlefjord/---FDM-Draft. I have not reworked External links section, but it needs pruning or deletion. It you are willing to critique the draft, please let me know and I will hold off making the revision until I hear from you. Also at age 91 I could become incapable to continue the revison. If so, please do it. Vejlefjord (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really busy right now, but briefly looked at the article and it seems much better. I'll try to look at it more closely by April 1. Thanks for your contributions.Jweaver28 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On Saturday, February 27, we have three different events. In the morning, we're holding an Accessibility Edit-a-Thon at Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Library. In the afternoon, we'll host our second February WikiSalon at Cove Dupont Circle, followed by our monthly dinner meetup at Vapiano.
We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!
Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at info@wikimediadc.org!
Thank you for your recent improvements to Abner Mikva. (When your contributions popped up on my watch list my heart sank, I thought oh no he had passed.) What a life! This would be a rewarding article to take to good article. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jweaver28, I just saw your fantastic images that you added to the Bunker Hill article! You should consider uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons so that they may be used on all Wikipedia platforms. Check out the Hampshire County category at Commons and see how I've organized my Hampshire County landmark photos and consider doing something similar for Berkeley County. Thank you again for your incredible photos and contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk)11:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Email Me jeannettekathleenrook@gmail.com I will prove to you that Oliver White Hill Sr. was born Charles B. Whiter. And that his was father was William T. White. I located his father along with his parents. I presented the proof to Oliver White Hill Jr.
Your work on the vital statistic's is truly wrong and I do Have it right. I have a history of providing documents as proof. I also have Oliver's father's death record.
Jeannette K. Rook
sorry, I moved your response to the bottom of my talk page per wikipedia custom, and also changed the heading you used, because your response does not relate to an article I created. I don't want to be emailed documents, nor engage in an edit war. Not only do I worry about malware--Wikipedia policy states it isn't the place for original research. My edits to the existing article relied upon readily available, published sources. I don't know what your reference to my "work on the vital statistic's is truly wrong" means even taking the obvious typos into account. If what you're suggesting is including the names of all four of his grandparents instead of just the paternal grandfather and maternal grandmother mentioned in the second paragraph, please just name them and post with a link to a verifiable public source (not your blog, please).
Unfortunately your edits this year to this article conflicted with readily available, published sources without giving your source, much less a verifiable one. Also, your last edit suggested creating a new page for Charles B. White, who does not appear a historically significant figure and thus eligible for inclusion per wikipedia's guidelines. Clearly, Mr. Hill's name is common--I don't doubt one or more Charles B. White(s) existed, but do doubt linkage between that individual and the civil rights lawyer who achieved prominence as Oliver Hill. I don't know when you gave Oliver Hill Jr. your documents, much less what they are, but wikipedia relies on independently verifiable research. Are you claiming even the death info from the Richmond Times Dispatch and various other obituaries is wrong? Also, another wikipedia custom is signing and dating your talk page edits with four tildas (on my keyboard the upper character on the key next to the "1").Jweaver28 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jweaver28
Please Email jeannettekathleenrook@ygmail.com All of your work Concerning Oliver White Hill's genealogy background is wrong. You see you write from Historian Perspective. Which is where you need to consult a genealogist which is different from History. I have supporting Documents and his correct Parents. His uncle was Alvin Ellsworth White He was AP Sports Writer. So much incorrect have been pass down. The Correct information was pass to Oliver White Hill Jr. All with valid Records. I have debunked so many inaccuracies of who is father is. I have even have his dad's death Record. You are not genealogist. Genealogy trumps Historian. Especially with Proof. Starting with Records. Valid legal documents. History needs genealogist to provide the best information not false records. I was the one who connected Beresenia Ann Walker to Maggie Lena Walker. It is dully noted with the Maggie Lena Walker Foundation with extreme records involving genealogy.
If your going to Continue to keep false information on Mr. Hill you do a disservice to this mans history.
Jeanette, I am not going to email you, either to set up a correspondence outside wikipedia or to receive possibly infected digital files. I don't know whether you're acting on your own behalf or on behalf of a paid client/s, or associated with a no-message crank phone call from New Jersey that I received almost immediately after I edited the Oliver Hill article yesterday. In any event, I acknowledged your viewpoint long ago in a footnote as well as the article's talk page. If you have published your research, I'll include a cite to it--or you can include that citation yourself. I've previously responded to several of your similar comments by reminding you of wikipedia's policy against original research, as well as cited Hill's published autobiography as my source. Your stating "Genealogy trumps Historian" changes neither. I wish you a happy New Year, but also hope you will stop beating this metaphorically dead horse.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I believe it is unnecessary to distinguish the biographical titles for names that are unique with elaborate suffixes such as (Virginia Constitutional Convention), although when names and initials are the same as another biography in Wikipedia, I have added (doctor) or (Virginian) without reviewer objection.
As I sort through the Chart of Delegates where I linked all names at their creation, I am unlinking those who were only elected to the Convention and to no other office, as I have at the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830 and the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850. My source for elective state office is Earl Gregg Swem, "Register of the General Assembly of Virginia, 1776-1918". I'm considering those elected to both state-level positions in a Convention and in the General Assembly or another Convention as wp:notable. Except in this Convention with blacks, Republicans and Radicals, I have found David L. Pulliam, "The Constitutional Conventions of Virginia from the Foundation of the Commonwealth to the present time" (1901) a useful source for thumbnail biographical sketches. I'm also referencing Jacob Neff Brenaman, "A history of Virginia Conventions" (1902) that includes a listing of the Alexandria Loyal Constitutional Convention of 1864 abolishing slavery, an assembly not recognized in Pulliam.
I just obtained a 1845 copy of Dr. Luther Porter Jackson's "Negro Office-Holders in Virginia, 1865-1895", so I look forward to filling in the blacks who were also members of the General Assembly, Delegates or state Senators. Because of their significance in this convention, I'm also considering adding delegates such as James T. S. Taylor 1840-1918, a freeman shoemaker from Charlottesville, son of a slave in Clarke County, Virginia who had bought himself and his family out of slavery and relocated them to Charlottesville. -- although it may be a while before it gets reviewed...for some reason the start-class bio on James E. Stewart has not yet been reviewed, probably because of a similarity to another James Stewart famous as a movie star.
Just a note to say I look forward to working with you, but won't be doing much wikipedia editing during the rest of the month due to other responsibilities. I find researching the delegates to that constitutional convention and next few General Assembly sessions fascinating as well as frustrating. For me, it requires a trip to a local history room at a local library (since even the 1960s era books aren't available for checkout in NoVa), and especially in this period, sometimes plowing through very racist verbiage. Like Earl Swem (and about half of today's residents in the Commonwealth according to a Virginia Historical Society exhibit), I'm not a native Virginian, and without him research into this era would be even more difficult due to a time-honored Virginia practice of forgetting those that don't fit into the Lost Cause mythology that was strangling Virginia's growth by the turn of the 20th century.
As for your new articles, they are an important start, but can take months to review, as I found with a bunch I put up about politicians during the Massive Resistance movement in the late spring that were reviewed in the fall. I would suggest finding and including the birth and death dates, as well as education and burial places if available. Libraries in Northern Virginia subscribe to ancestry.com's library edition. It is only available on certain machines at the library (one of the reasons for my Virginia room visits despite the limited hours) but helps a lot in distinguishing people with the same name. However, it can also be frustrating, like yesterday not being able to access certain findagrave.com pages from this netbook while/where I was editing wikipedia articles, even though they were open on the library's standalone also in front of me, or seeing teasers about a 1860 federal census slave schedule and a supposed DC death report from 1873 only available for an additional fee.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for putting up an article about James W. Hunnicutt. Other important people who have Encyclopediavirginia articles but not wikipedia articles include Norton and Bowden. I like the idea of prioritizing those who later served in the General Assembly, but also relinked the articles I recently put up about Nickerson and Hine, in part b/c I think all of the convention members meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Probably in early February I'll start either on William L. Owen (whose might be related to Robert L. Owen that I just set up, and who was the delegate who previously owned the most slaves-40) and/or Hawxhurst (figuring out how to distinguish the Quaker brothers John and Job, and who later became a mayor of Fairfax City, and who served in the 1861 Beckley Convention establishing West Virginia).Jweaver28 (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. WP housekeeping: Bkonrad pinned my ears back for using the non-standard disambiguation (Virginian), and instead he boldly renamed an article John Watson (Virginia politician). — probably a better solution than my first stab at the disambiguation business.
Daniel M. Norton, delegate to the 1868 Convention, Justice of the Peace and a state Senator is noted in Jackson, “Negro Office-holders in Virginia, 1865-1895”, but not written up in a thumbnail sketch on page 30. Nevertheless, on page 31, there is a photo of him to be had. The photos are distributed throughout the book, with some state officeholders found in every section. I do not find a list of illustrations index. More legwork to determine if there other relevant portraits for our purposes.
Swem on page 385 distinguishes between Job Hauxhurst who is a member of the House of Delegates 1869/70 and 1870/71, versus John who he lists in the Convention of 1867/68. Jacob Brenaman, “A History of Virginia Conventions” (1902) lists John Hauxhurst also as a previous delegate to the Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864 in Alexandria.
Only one of the three blue linked delegates named in the chart of delegates for the 1864 Convention goes to the correct nineteenth century Virginia politician person. That will be my next chart of delegates survey and copyedit.
Since the initial creation of Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864 by Dallyripple from one of my subsection headings without discussion, I have concluded that a preponderance of the historical sources consider the civil government under the Constitution of 1864 as the recognized governance of Virginia until the Constitution of 1870 — including the Library of Virginia's Encyclopedia Virginia online. It did after all abolish slavery. Lost Cause sources deny its legitimacy, including one constitutional scholar from UVA quoted in the Dinan "The Virginia State Constitution" (2011) chapter on conventions. Most sources say the 1864 Constitution was proclaimed as were the Constitutions of 1776 and 1902. Subsequent court cases following the 1902 Constitution held that since the civil government in all branches acted as though it were in force without civil disruption and tumult, therefore the 1902 Constitution was legitimate without the referendum called for in General Assembly enacting legislation in 1900. The 1864 Constituion was likewise submitted to as the lawful authority in post Civil War Virginia, so I agree with most reliable sources.
I sympathize about the renaming/disambiguation; IMHO "Virginia politician" seems too long too. I expect something similar with the article I named Thomas Bayne (Sam Nixon), but then ex-slave would be worse, dentist inappropriate, Virginian inaccurate and politician also inaccurate. IMHO he was important both for his escape (while named Sam Nixon), and also as an activist. I didn't take the time to review the talk pages for Bradley/Chelsea Manning, for example, and I don't know offhand anyone else for whom renaming was an important issue, except possibly Louis Farrakhan (who at least chose a unique name not requiring such disambiguation). I suspect Bayne took the name of a sea captain he met in New Bedford or elsewhere, but then Massachusetts folks haven't happened upon the article and I don't have time to look up the book I saw cited somewhere about New Bedford. Also, I disagree with the encyclopediavirginia author in that Bayne IMHO really wasn't a skilled politician, and couldn't even get elected in his local community shortly after the convention. I would also have liked to mention his religious activism, but couldn't corroborate it.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, I don't like either Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864 nor Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1864, but I'm nowhere near a copy of the Cynthia Miller Leonard (Leonard Miller?) Virginia General Assembly 1619-1978. I wonder how she handled it. I know she went relied on Swem, but before unfortunately don't the time to work on this this week.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider photocopying Jackson's "Negro office-holders in Virginia, 1865-1895" for your own shelves, as I found my copy at Abe Books for about $45. In that way I have a several chapters of William J. Van Schreerven's 45-odd paged photocopied staple-bound book "The Conventions of Virginia, 1776-1966" published by the Library of Virginia just prior to the 1968 Consitutional revision commission, otherwise available to me only in my local library rare book room, and alas, I can no longer drive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Good recall. "Virginia General Assembly 1619-1978" by Cynthia Miller Leonard is available at the Library of Virginia at Virginia General Assembly 1619-1978 for $29.95.
I am also trying to track down the names of the constitutional commission of 1927, limited constitutional convention of 1945, limited constitutional convention of 1956, and the constitutional commission of 1968. Any leads? Do you remember Leonard including the constitutional convention members as did Swem?
On a little digression, I am using Swem's volume on my shelves to give a second source to the start-class bios that otherwise get tagged with ONE-SOURCE when I use Pulliam only. When contested in that way, I note on Talk,
"Pulliam is listed in William Hamilton Bryson’s “Virginia Law Books: essays and bibliographies, volume 239” (2000) on page 235.
"David L. Pulliam, Jacob N. Brenaman and William J. Van Schreeven are referenced as reliable sources for “comprehensive analyses of Virginia Conventions” by the Constitutional scholar John J. Dinan in his Biographical Essay in his “The Virginia Constitution: a reference guide, part 56.” (2006) page 231."
I trust that is not unseemingly defensive. No one has retagged any of the articles I've cleared yet, although someone in the Project Virginia periodically comes behind and reclassifies the start-class articles as stubs in a banner at the bottom of the article page. Stubs are what some of my next level of postings will be --- truly stubs, as they will sometimes only be one-sourced, noting membership in a constitutional convention and home county represented, and on occasion without even birth and death dates. Any thoughts on the wiki-posting without collaborating contributions? Should this next level of stub-bios even be started as a matter of policy at Wikipedia? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay, which I trust hasn't disrupted your sleep. LOL (sort of). I wanted to gather my thoughts, and also needed to track down a copy of Pulliam. I haven't tried very hard to track down a copy of Dinan's recent volume. Although the Oxford University Press usually does a good job, its volumes are pricey (as are most law books that seems the market by the title) and not generally available in local public libraries.
I'm uncomfortable about articles without birth and death dates, especially since some of the Virginia politician lists only mention the delegate's initials. I've happened upon bad wiki-links to stub-class articles for clearly different people having the same common name. Another problem I've encountered is that even using the modern Mormon database (ancestry.com) for minorities and people who move around, often one such date is missing.
Pulliam does mention the delegate's political affiliation, which I think would be a good addition to the 1868 convention article (perhaps another column in the table). He also gives a name rather than initials, which is helpful in setting up stub class articles. That said, his bios are not as accurate and authoritative as those of E. Griffith Dodson, whose volumes are available free electronically through the Hathi Trust, but who I believe starts with bios in an early 20th century legislative session.(I'm not in a library right now and have exceeded my wikipedia/library hours for the week LOL). Leonard is available in the reference or Virginiana collections at most Virginia public library systems, and is both accurate and authoritative (with a great index as well as layout showing who succeeded to the seat, etc). However, she doesn't include bios, often uses just the initials for 19th century person, and doesn't give party affiliations. Together, IMHO, Leonard and Pulliam (or for later legislators, Leonard and Dodson) meet the 2-source criteria.
Pulliam's 1868 convention entry IMHO messed up with Job Hawxhurst's name and John C. Woodson's birth county and dates, which isn't your problem, and frankly not horrible (95% or 98% is still an astronomical fielding percentage, to use a baseball analogy to a shortstop with great range). That said, I didn't check Leonard about the 20th century conventions. I think articles about the Wheeling Convention and legislative sessions, as well the legislative sessions of the VGA in Alexandria would be useful. They are not mentioned in Pulliam at all, but are listed in Leonard and maybe in Dodson.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your checking behind me on the bio start-and stub articles, this is not the place for wp:ownership.
The research desk at the Library of Virginia confirms Leonard as including the limited conventions in the 20th century, and gave me a couple of leads for the constitutional commissions. I am impressed with your range of resources knowledge in the field…could you make a couple of biographical notes on your background for your User page or here?
I am using Dinan’s “The Virginia State Constitution: a reference guide” (2006) which is considerably less expensive than the complete volume, but includes an introductory chapter surveying Virginia's constitutional conventions.
Jacob Neff Brenaman includes the list of 1864 delegates on page 70 of “A history of Virginia Conventions” (1902), he is the source for the chart of delegates at Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864. I’ve not been able to find anything much, it is said only one newspaper issue reporting directly from the convention remains extant. — some bare-boned references pop up in articles reprinting news in Republican papers.
Reprints of Pulliam are available on demand at several booksellers, that’s where I got my copy. I do not remember it being available in its entirety online, though it is in the public domain.
I followed one of the external links in Dodson's wp article and found “The Virginia elections and state elected officials database project, 1776-2007”, which as an election history for Norton at Daniel M. Norton, which is useful, because it gives both times he ran for Congress in 1869 and 1872, even though he lost both times — which I suppose is available for other office-holders in the database. One could imagine walking through each Chart of Delegates and adding narrative, citation and bibliography from the database for existing start-class bios. as another step in the project.
(Recently an editor arbitrarily changed all of Governor Wise’s Congressional elections as occurring in even years, without a source backing up the change. — here it notes the election years were in odd years in Virginia then. — so much policing has to go into WP articles … I am not sure I can keep up with them…in this case, even good faith anachronism requires attention.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't share much about my personal life in part because I value my privacy (as do many Virginians). Also, in Arlington on April 30, 2014 a creep I'd never met and who had driven over in a Maryland-tagged BMW, when I asked him if the basement next door had flooded again, launched a diatribe--yelling at me to "shut up online", saying I had been warned before, promising "Virginia Courts" would shut me up, and claiming to be part of a nationwide, multi-state group of attorneys and investors that had been tracking me and would wage warfare, including cyber, until I sold them "properties". I thought he was blustering. He also refused to tell me when or by whom I had been warned, although about a decade earlier a Chicago attorney had warned me to keep quiet about an estate matter and on April 1, 2014 a DC attorney had called me back after I had called Virginia bar counsel and told me not to report fraud against the elderly neighbors who had sold that property to an unregistered LLC.
About a week after that diatribe, someone with the same name filed false paperwork for a domestic violence protective order against me, which an Arlington magistrate granted ex parte and a district judge affirmed after calling a nearly hour long recess until the plaintiff (another guy) showed up with an unnamed attorney and a witness. The witness (who I later found gave a nonexistent address and had been disbarred in D.C.) said I was clearly mentally ill telling people at their open house from my front yard about their property's uncorrected wet basement. The Bethesda attorney took pains to tell me off the record that legal costs would cause me to sell, and over my objection received court approval to withdraw once the "flip" finished. I stopped posting about illegal robocalls on 800notes.com based on the district judge's oral admonition. When I appealed, the attorney withdrew in the matter, but his partner also helped the client move from the Mt. Rainier house that had long been in foreclosure (based on the client's illegal "liar loan" and subsequent years of nonpayment)....
Clearly, I went to law school (FYI in the Bay Area though undergrad was near Boston). Obviously, this isn't the place to recount that story, nor cyber-schenanigans and other petty harassment against me, and against my church's rector and assistant in the past 18 months or so. However, the real estate flip season has begun, and I'm under fire: from 703-100-1111 (clearly faked but to appear from Northern Virginia) as well anonymous numbers in the 757 area code (Chesapeake, Norfolk and VA beach), plus Chicago lawyers and investors, with some supposed Pennsylvania investors using Arlington, California and South Carolina addresses or mailers (among other places) thrown in. I posted on a religious/health blog on January 19 and my desktop computer was dead by the next morning. I've had a number of different cellphones (android and iPhone). I stopped linking them to my two email accounts, and last year restricted wikipedia postings to 4 machines (of which only this now works somewhat reliably). Less than an hour before a scheduled Chicago status last Thursday, I got a voicemail wanting to confirm my federal employee insurance for a physical therapy appointment in Herndon. I haven't been a federal employee in over a decade, needed physical therapy in decades, and Herndon's way beyond Fairfax, so I eventually reported it despite the warnings. Last Saturday, I updated my other laptop at the Fairfax library and got an odd internet explorer update, (which no other of my various laptops or netboxes received the next day or since), plus that library's standalones (necessary to use ancestry.com) also for the last month seem to throw internet explorer errors or reboot b/c of BSOD problems on every day when I simultaneously edit wikipedia using this machine. Anyhow, this morning, the keyboard and touchpad of that Win8 laptop were unresponsive, and it wouldn't reboot even when plugged into power. Was this part of the promised cyberwarfare to get me to shut up (even though my wikipedia entries have no clear relation to this modern elderscam/real estate situation; and I haven't posted anywhere else since January 19)? Or retaliation for me reporting to the Illinois treasurer other instances of possible fraud last week (involving my uncle) and yesterday (involving a legal LLC that wanted my dad's federal income tax return from 2009)?
All this is a long way of saying I don't know when I'll be able to get back to this project, although I hope to check at the Alexandria Friends' meeting and/or Arlington and Fairfax Virginiana rooms to finish the John Hawxhurst article within a week.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for the cyber attacks, I wish I knew of something to help. At some point in the past, my father received persistent nuisance phone calls in a distinct accent for six years at his retirement home, and then they stopped. I wonder if it would be worthwhile switching to Apple products recommended by my brother and brother in law; they have way more tech savvy than I do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the condolences. I'm not trying to one-up-you but my dad got illegal robocalls from all over the U.S., as well as masked numbers (to none of which he responded financially), though he did have a fall and broke his wrist when trying to get a call he thought was from me stranded in downtown Chicago and postponing dinner, which turned out to be one of those. Meanwhile, my uncle (his twin) sort of helped a couple of younger immigrant women hook up with dad, to whom he gave money supposedly to solve legal problems and/or help their kids (although mail orders to what turned out to be a mailbox store in the SF bay area raised a red flag to me). I contacted the FBI, that to the best of my knowledge did nothing; ditto with the local police and the identity theft earlier this month, and one out of Texas involving credit card fraud two years ago.
This morning, I logged into my hotmail account (which also gets messages from wikipedia, among others) and got a nearly instantaneous message supposedly from apple telling me that moments earlier someone had logged into my apple account from windows pc using the google chrome browser in Singapore. I had just walked my dogs and taken a picture of the corner near my house where a white superpickup truck with tags that expired on January 31 had been parked for the last 2 weeks. Was the email another of Y.C.'s promised tracking and other harassments? I didn't click on the link, because the concealed headers said it came from a gobbledygook account at "serecsrc.com", and google and duckduckgo searches of that domain produced nothing. While I currently have an iPhone, I have never associated it with my apple account, nor used it to access hotmail. Plus, I haven't accessed my apple account in quite a while (if not years) despite lots of nagware requesting signup or links. Same with google and microsoft. Why? I had an iPhone4 while helping my dad in the Chicago area in 2013, and during the May 2014 Arlington craziness, I received an iOS update message, which the Washington Post said was a legitimate update, so I installed it a few days later. It also installed a note on my phone to "call Yanel", that being the first name of the crooked flipper. Was the iOS update I installed last week after the iPhone couldn't find the Falls Church Hmart so I could pick up dinner after editing wikipedia at the Fairfax central library similarly compromised? Normally, I take photos using a phone that I no longer use as a phone (SIM card removed). However, I mislaid it a couple of weeks ago, and so was using my live phone to take photos. While I have technically opted out of apple's cloud storage option, which I believe insecure, Apple or its partners or hackers might want confirmation linking my phone to my apple account.
All this is a long way of saying I probably won't be doing much wikipedia editing for the rest of the month, unless I need to use a library's wifi for another device. I've gotta do spring cleaning, among other responsibilities. BTW, or getting back to your question about delayed reviews, the wikipedia article on delegate Blake T. Newton which I posted in October and accessed on my iPhone on Thursday while getting my wheels aligned in Stafford en route to the VHS, was just reviewed last night.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Do you do any work at the Virginia Historical Society? I am interested in finding period county maps of Virginia in the public domain or with permissions to explore how to add the districts used to select delegates at the various Virginia Constitutional Conventions. I have a reprint bought thirty years ago from the Library of Virginia (then Virginia State Library) of Crozet's 1850 map of internal improvements showing county boundaries framed in my living room, but it is not digitalized. At Wikicommons, there is Finley's 1827 map showing counties. Do you know what software I should try to master so that I can draw boundaries? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only computer software I've heard about is for recent political campaigns and probably expensive. I haven't had the time to work at the Virginia Historical Society recently. Since they required membership to use the library last fall, I found many of the resources on wikipedia's broad level also obtainable at the Library of Virginia, or at local libraries. But I really do appreciate their exhibits, and sometimes schedule other trips to Richmond so I can attend their films. My local reference librarian also thinks the LVA might be the best way to track those maps down. Unfortunately, I could not drive down yesterday for the transcribing event, and don't know when I'll get there next, so you might want to phone.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to conform the article a little more closely to that in the Encyclopedia Virginia, particularly concerning the circumstances of Norton's later life and death. Today, I happened upon an article I added a few months ago, about Virginia state senator Thomas J. Kirkpatrick of Lynchburg, whom editor RJensen apparently tagged in January as not being sufficiently notable, although wikipedia didn't notify me, as it has for linked articles, etc.Jweaver28 (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My copy of Leonard's "General Assembly of Virginia" (1976) came in today. She titles the "Convention of 1864" on page 498 in the same style as other Virginia Constitutional Conventions. -- although all institutions of the Restored Government are indented in the Table of Contents. Leonard sources J.N. Brenaman, so only observes the adoption of the 1850 Constitution by the Convention, not referring to suffrage restrictions on rebels, or the abolition of slavery in the 1864 Constitution. The other source cited is the "Journal of the Constitutional Convention the 13th day of February, 1864" which may be at the Library of Virginia? -- John Hawxhurst is named for Fairfax, just as Swem did. The Virginia Department of Education sources the text of the Virginia Constitution—1864 online at vagovernmentmatters.org. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jweaver28, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The work you have done and continue to do on increasing Wikipedia's coverage of historical figures is without parallel and is very much appreciated. It is my pleasure to award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Mifter (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It would be good to have some more citations to support the details here, please.
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.
At Virginia State Senate District Maps, published by The Virginia Elections and State Elected Officials Database Project, 1776-2008, Department of Politics, University of Virginia, there is a treasure trove of period county maps of Virginia following the Kentucky cession from 1780, 1800, 1830, 1852, 1871, 1902 and 1990. The source is not in print, but I hope to see if there are other maps in it for the boundaries in years just before Constitutional Conventions on a visit to VHS this week ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're going to VHS during the week or this weekend. Though LVA is closed, I was thinking of driving down to Richmond on Saturday or Sunday and checking out some of the historic houses that are open (and free this weekend). If you're in town, I'd love to meet. Otherwise, for women's history month, I wanted to work on two articles, each of which might have notability/troll issues. Thus, I might go to DC instead on Saturday to work on Narcissa Owen, who after leaving Lynchburg, became a fairly distinguished artist as well as author, and my book club is also in the DC area on Sunday at 5pm.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the visit was Thursday-Friday. Goldbug.com came through with permissions for their period state county maps for publication with attribution for my book project. They cover all 48 contiguous states' county development comprehensively. But since the maps are not "free" because attribution is required, Wikipedia non-free use gatekeepers will not allow their use here. The fear is that subsequent reproduction without attribution by bad actors would make WP liable for lost revenues.
They nixed my use of USPS images that also require attribution, even though USPS said in reply to a direct inquiry that its stamp images could be used on Wikipedia with attribution only at the download description of the image. Also, the value was in the stamp itself, not in its image, so no liability accrued to WP by subsequent bad actors in my view. Otherwise I would use the USPS stamps in articles such as Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps. The few USPS images used there are for stamps illustrated with period paintings in the public domain that cannot be copyright protected, USPS assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, so rule the non-free use gatekeepers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ellwood Family Cemetery.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ellwood Family Cemetery.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
I look forward to meeting you. I just moved my car to a parking lot that has shade and am writing as Jim McCauley speaks. I admit that I'm among those underdressed for the event, since I didn't take time to change in Abington, but you might notice me typing on my purple mini-laptop as it tries to download and install a windows update for the 7th time or so.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get a hold of you. You are 100% Percent wrong on Oliver White Hill's parents and even including his birth name. I have been in Contact with Oliver White Hill Jr. Your work on his parents is so far off you might as well live in the twilight zone. He was born Charles B. White. Oliver had to file for a birth certificate with the courts in Virginia. I have copies of the work. His father was William T. White who married Oliva Lewis. Oliver Sr. had a very famous Uncle Alvin Ellsworth White He was a Sports writer for the AP. So I know your genealogy work on Oliver White Hill Sr. is wrong. I present my proof to Oliver White Hill Jr. He is so happy that I connected his with Alvin's daughter who currently lives in Georgia.
I had asked you to email me so I can submit my work. jeannettekathleenrook@gmail.com and I am a contributor to Wikiapedia. I will more than happy to send my files and my work on Oliver White Hill Sr. Along with his Birth Records that legally states he was born Charles B. White. I hand that record to Oliver White Hill Jr. And he was so happy with the work that I present to his. My work includes proof. All you include is what other people or what people have written.
Jeannette K. Rook
PS Email Me Here jeannettekathleenrook@gmail.com I will also submit your incorrect to Wikiapedia and my correct work along with the proper paper work. that means the legal documents. That is call the Birth Record. Which I do have.
Hi, Jeanette. It seems you have a new user name since last year. I hope the previous one wasn't banned for violating wikipedia policies. FYI, I mentioned your finding Hill's first name as Charles on his birth certificate on the article's talk page last year. However, for the reasons I enunciated there and in what is now footnote 2 of the article itself, I won't be making the edit you suggested to the actual article Oliver Hill. Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, and I haven't seen the birth certificate, nor have I ordered it. I won't post my email address nor email you to receive it as an attachment. The material I put in the childhood section comes out of Hill's autobiography, which I cited. His mother married twice, so I used all her names rather than just her maiden name "Olivia Lewis". I have other responsibilities so won't be going to the Library of Virginia any time soon to borrow a copy to check his father's middle initial, nor consult that book in the local history reference collections here in Northern Virginia. My recollection is that Oliver's paternal grandfather was the minister of the church Oliver's maternal grandmother attended, and I don't recall any mention of the sportswriter relative link. Though that genealogical link may well be true, wikipedia requires a verifiable, publicly accessible source, and I don't have one. Plus, no article has yet been written about Alvin Ellsworth White, though googling I noted he was mentioned as a forgotten figure in African American baseball. Maybe you can write an article about him. Also, one of these days, if I'm at a library subscribing to ancestry.com and remember, I'll check the father's middle initial issue. However, I know that many articles relating to African-American history have yet to be written (Revs. Henry Williams and Grady Powell of Gillfield Baptist Church (Petersburg, Virginia) immediately come to mind as other to-be-written articles). I believe that's the case with that Richmond church and Hill's pastor grandfather, so that may be another contribution you can make, or even write an article about Oliver Hill Jr., who even participated in an oral history concerning his father in 2013, which I haven't had the time to review and include as a footnote to his father's article. For what it's worth, I'm also not reversing the drive-by edit of Wick420, who apparently objects to the inclusion of "Peanut" as Hill's nickname--because I haven't read his papers to determine whether that nickname continued in his adult life so that it's inclusion is necessary for researchers of his legal career.Jweaver28 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the post here that I replied to yesterday is another impersonation of Jytdog, who is a paid editor, seems to advocate loosening of paid editor disclosures, and says on her userpage that her twitter account was hacked by someone else at some point in time. I'm not a paid editor and don't do twitter. I have been subject to various forms of harassment (including cyber) by certain real estate development interests for several years (including a young guy who gave a false name and cussed me out in person on April 30, 2014, promising his "nationwide" group of attorneys and developers would continue to harass me until I both sold property to them and "shut up online"). The guy proclaimed his group's cyber expertise, especially tracking people by their phones, of which I've used several since. This was posted on my wikipedia talk page after I received a solicitation in my snail mail box on Saturday and did not call the included number, but instead went to my local public library and made a wikipedia edit. The library was soon evacuated due to a false fire alarm, and the computer I was assigned on return soon shut down. Nonetheless, I didn't answer a call from an unknown number that chose not to leave a message; ditto with the next day's phone call from another suspicious number as I listened to a sermon in church. Returning to wikipedia, for a person of Jytdog's sophistication to misplace a note on a userpage seems odd. Furthermore, the ad hominem attack based on a matter taken care of a year ago, seems inconsistent with her userpage's avowed support for wikipedia's 5 pillars. I noticed that while the November 19 move does show among Jytdog's contributions, I could not find the October creation of the supposed page/note being moved. Frankly, I experienced various cyber problems on October 19, which I attributed to those real estate cyberbullies (possibly relating to my posting on another site of dog-lovers, as one of my dogs and wholly unrelated to real estate, religion or politics). I am posting here in case she's again subject to some kind of identity theft (as I have been this year with people making medical appointments for providers I never contacted and for conditions I don't have; learning about them as providers tried to confirm my insurance status). However, if this week's crazy post here was paid, I think Jytdog should have disclosed it. Plus, I believe sockpuppets are also forbidden by wikipedia, so if the October page and 2016 edits were created by a sockpuppet of this user, she deserves further discipline through wikipedia. I don't know about arbcom practices and frankly have better things to do with my time.Jweaver28 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Jweaver28 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for three months. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in. I have determined that you will be affected by certain blocks and have given you this so that it will not affect your ability to edit.
In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.
If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here
Hi, and thanks for your work here. Could you please look at this edit where it appears you left a portion of a reference at the end of the Architecture section? Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick fix while waiting for a dental appointment, libraries being closed today. However, I'm not sure when I'll be able to visit the cemetery and I didn't want to include info about another obelisk honoring a riverboat captain if it was removed (having been mentioned as badly damaged by a fallen tree in the NRHP nomination form).Jweaver28 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Thanks for uploading File:Louise Lucas Official portrait 2016 session.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).
It's no longer orphaned. The preferred 2018 photo has been bot-deleted, though I provided a rationale days before expanding the rationale for this portrait, so I used this backup until I can speak again with the clerk's office.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LLucas2018.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:S. c. walker virginia senate 1998.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:S. c. walker virginia senate 1998.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).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Virginia Senator Edward E Willey 1986.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Virginia Senator Edward E Willey 1986.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Louise Lucas Official portrait 2016 session.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).
Hi Jweaver28! You created a thread called oops posted an article as a userpage at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for one year. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Thanks for uploading File:Senator louise lucas.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Senator louise lucas.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Senator louise lucas.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).
Thanks. I am very aware of its unreliability and thanks for the link, but at the risk of appearing petty, it may also be used where other sources are unavailable. For many politicians (about whom my history articles are mostly about), where their graves and papers are very much part of their legacy, and whether they married and had kids did affect their careers. That said, right now I'm not editing much because libraries are closed due to covid-19, and therefore more accurate genealogical and other information is not available (although the cyberfraudsters harassing me haven't given up and someone put a global block on the municipal wireless from which I did some anonymous and quite legitimate editing).11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk)01:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your reversion that I violated wikipedia's copyright policy. First, you reverted my morning edits which were both organizational and consistent with the article's tag about needing more sources. The only reference when I started was the political graveyard site, with the congressional bio and c-span appearances mentioned as external sources. Most of my morning edits relied on a genealogical userpage which relied upon a Virginia oral history project in the 1940s, and I didn't even discover the Appalachian State finding aide until the afternoon, and I cited it. That the congressman served on the Appalachian State board and others is of course highly relevant to the article, as is his papers' location. Frankly, I wonder whether someone before me used the App.State finding aide without attribution. My afternoon edit (no longer accessible) not only cited it, but changed the sentence structure and organizaiton to avoid plagarism. Admittedly, in the morning I also made a findagrave ref, which generally isn't good policy but the cited geneology webpage has bad internal links and I couldn't find the Virginia/WPA government history because libraries are closed. Your reversion thus worsened the copyright problem you cited as correcting.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I tried to explain my edit last week to the Cabell Breckinridge article on its talk page, but keep getting blocked. I log in, add the talk page section as referring to Transylvania University, then get a session error message and notice I'm no longer logged in. When I try to resubmit, I get the general block message for the Arlington Public Library site, not set to expire until late April 2021. I thought I had sufficient permissions to log in, as I had previously, but because of ongoing cyberharassment, which may have contributed to my last year old but workhouse laptop's demise in November, I've only been using a Windows S locked laptop for the past couple of months.Jweaver28 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You're not blocked directly, and you already have IP block exemption until the end of February. All I can suggest is clearing your browser, deleting all cookies and waiting 24 hours. — O Still SmallVoice of Clam21:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The problem may relate to Arlington's wifi network, with which I have occasionally had issues during the pandemic, though I edited anonymously a couple of times. For what it's worth, I was able to add a section to the Cabell Breckinridge talk page just now by driving to Fairfax library wifi. My changes to the mention of his supposed abolitionist views wasn't changed. I've been able to edit a bit at Alexandria as well as Fairfax during the pandemic, and yesterday and two weeks previously was able to edit at the Library of Virginia. But I'm steamed that my cyber harassers stress Arlington links, while doing their most overt harassment with political as well as silencing overtones mostly from Maryland, California and D.C. phone numbers.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing happened today, at the same Arlington location. I had logged in to wikimedia commons and added a possibly partially WPA-funded photo of the former Union Hill plantation house in Nelson County, Virginia (which the Library of Congress purchased in 1953 from the estate of Frances Benjamin Johnston so I no longer believe copyright protected), then had to log in again to wikipedia to edit the article in which I wanted to place it (William Cabell (American Revolution)) but received a message about the block affecting my IP address.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Either the same problem recurred as last month, or my block protection has expired. FYI, I edit wikipedia on municipal networks in part because probable AI bots which followed my wikipedia edits with unattributed and varied cyberharassment. I believe my edits in the last month show that allowing me to edit articles with attribution is worthwhile and in accordance with wikipedia's mission}}Jweaver28 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Sorry if this looks odd compared to last month's unblock request, but the block's still active, so the photo I uploaded this morning still isn't used on any wikipedia page. Nor am I about to explain the difference between this Union Hill in Nelson County, Virginia and the somewhat nearby African American community in Buckingham County that recently successfully appealed a pipeline route through the federal courts.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
either my attributed user unblock priority expired, or the same problem recurred. I've waited 24 hours and no response nor ability to in the local public library wifi zone as I pick up my holds. Jweaver28 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
The exemption had expired. I've given you a week IP block exemption so you can resume editing; for something longer term please follow the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
It's happened again. I'm again outside the Arlington public library where I just picked up a book so I revise the J. Lindsay Almond article with page cites. I also tried to sign into the Philadelphia wikisalon, that I'm zooming
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Block still in place, though I think I'm collateral damage. As I picked up a dvd at my local library, I tried to add a wikilink to Joseph S. Wheat, a page I had created in 2017 and about which I was notified of someone else's OK edit 9 months ago. The same IP block notice expiring in a month reappeared, and I've received no update on my request for continued block override privileges. FYI, I also brought the checked-out book I want to add as a ref to the J. Lindsay Almond, but can't add the ref and return the book because of the block. I thought I followed the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY, though the real estate cyberharassment may have accelerated with someone using my hotmail account linked here and elsewhere to seek (false) verification of a purported cashapp account.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
I've gone ahead and extended your IPBE for another year. One of the reasons that this process had been slowed down is that a checkuser had asked you for your username on 3/14, and you had not answered. SQL Thanks. The checkuser note seems to have gotten lost in cyberspace, or perhaps was caught in whatever mess caused my hotmail account not to sync despite multiple morning and afternoon checks on Sunday, and again Monday. So when I still saw nothing from wikipedia even in my junkmail folder, and after again clearing the cache, I resubmitted. Which I hope does not detract from my thanks for the extension, which seems to have solved the problem (although on this relatively new and supposedly locked down laptop I couldn't see an option to thank SQL directly).Jweaver28 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits to the above. Just a comment that the Mason article is a Featured Article, and has been checked. Everything has been sourced. Where there are several sentences in a paragraph ending with a citation, that means the entire paragraph is sourced to that citation. If you therefore insert a citation in the middle of that, as you did a few times in your edits, it makes it appear that the entire matter up to the citation you inserted is sourced to that citation. That confuses the issue. Also, please note that more is not necessarily better, especially on the level of detail (not everyone is interested in every little fact regarding Mason as much as we are), and we should go easy on using primary sources such as collected papers. Just a few thoughts for your consideration.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An uptick in cyberbullying (including lost internet connections) prevented me from responding to this earlier, nor analyzing all of your edits. I am not accusing you of being one of the cyberbullies who vowed to shut me up online, based on your edits to the John Tyler article. Although I do not believe your edits there met wikipedia standards, they led to to drop further edits on that article. The condescension in your "we should go easy on using primary sources" comment above likewise does not meet wikipedia standards. I do not know your academic background, nor Virginia connections. I did check that the George Washington article at least cites published compilations of his papers in the bibliography. This article did not, when I started. Your first edit introduced an error--George Mason did not own any property in Stafford County for several years before the Ratification Convention. You may not realize that unlike with Washington (and Jefferson and Adams and even Councillor Robert Carter), no good biography of George Mason has yet been published. The only volumes that meet modern academic standards about Mason are the Copeland/MacMaster book and Rutland's compiled papers that I cited--both about five decades old. Genealogical and economic scholarship has changed considerably since, as databases have developed. The most recent GM biography, by an Alabama? trial lawyer and published by Regnery Press a couple of years ago, did not attempt to meet academic cite checking nor copyediting standards. Copeland/MacMaster and Rutland note that many if not most of the documents in Kate Rowland Mason's century-plus old Lost-Cause influenced biography simply do not exist. None of GM's letters to his son Thomas now exist according to Rutland. His 3-voume edited compilation includes several letters from late in GM's life indicating that he was setting up his youngest sons John and Thomas as merchants, not planters. But by transcribing only that very old will into the deed book, without any codicils as is very unusual for the time, they became wealthy planters. The GM papers that do exist were gathered and curated by John Mason. Due to wikipedia's policy against original research, I did not mention in my recent edit that GM died about a year after his friend Councillor Robert Carter announced that he was manumitting slaves, to the great consternation of planters in northern (if not all) Virginia, per the Levy book cited in that article.Jweaver28 (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you review changes done to Robert Carter III by you. There is a reference to "King Carter" but doesn't define it relates to main article. Chirag (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made changes to that article in quite a while (during which others have made dozens) and have other priorities today, particularly since you haven't explained what problem concerned you. King Carter was his grandfather, Robert Carter I, with the link in the first sentence of the first non-lede section, Early life and career, of the Robert Carter III article. For what it's worth, the non-link in that paragraph, Philip Ludwell Lee was explained in the article about his brother, Thomas Ludwell Lee that I worked on a couple of days ago.Jweaver28 (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jweaver. Don't know if it matters to you, I just saw that you've contributed to that article. I'll only bother you this one more time. If you want, you can find the current discussion here. It's a bit stuck. I'm not a native speaker and don't know what feels like being the right variant in your area and community, and the online available data is not always clear or the best criterion. Thanks and all the best, Arminden (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your previous note a week or 2 ago. Congratulations about resuming wikipedia editing. I see that this matters to you. I checked the discussion thread from 2013/2014 and don't have anything to add. Unfortunately, your recent timing comes as the cyberbullying I'm experiencing has escalated.Jweaver28 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I'm sorry to hear about the harassment. As far as I can see, in 2013-14 the only two points touched upon were the move from "Raising of Tabitha" to Dorcas, but I can see no real argument on why exactly, and a short discussion on Dorcas being the name used for the (Protestant?) philantropic societies and that having little import for how the biblical figure and the article should be called. So extremely little. But maybe there's something on another talk-page I'm not aware of. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Augustine Washington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Lee.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Carlyle Herbert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page House of Delegates.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Hi, I noticed you're working on person from the Virginia house and Burgesses any chance you're also looking at the Virgnia house history site? https://history.house.virginia.gov/members It would be a huge help to add the ID from the person's url to the Wikipedia page's wikidata item as Property P9443 so the page can be linked back and we can match it cleanly to https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/#/catalog/3022 which I'm currently trying to match to the respective Wikipedia categories Burgesses and House prior to creating the missing IDs. This lets us make queries to generate lists and link to related material about the subject. This is part of the Wikidata project every politician -> see Virginia's queries. Keep up the great work! Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not working on the house history site and have no idea who is. It seemed promising a few years ago, and I cited it a lot in 2015 and 2016, then it revamped around 2017 or 2018 and languished. Updating the Leonard volume of five decades ago that I keep citing, is obviously a huge project, and from what I've seen in the last couple of years, the project's now DOA. For what it's worth, though my issues with history.house.virginia.gov issue date before Covid, either the entire Virginia General Assembly website or parts got hacked maliciously during Covid.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey good job on Shirley Plantation, I guess, because I'm not going to read and verify all the sources. ;) Sounds very smart and legit! You have freed the article from having less stuff.
Thanks, even if I'm a canine fancier. You've given me incentive to drive to Fairfax tomorrow afternoon to consult the source there.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow cool. That darn ye olden Virginia sure was a pickle, wasn't it? I picked Virginia as my state report in third grade, wrote a letter to its government for info, and I never heard of any of this ;) Last weekend, I drove to Quindaro Townsite and took some photos, including the John Brown statue, and I learned of some of his major problems in Virginia as mentioned in John Brown's last speech. If you happen to check for any essential historical sites that haven't been photographed on commons.wikimedia.org, and you take some good ones and dump them there via the Upload Wizard, I would be glad to clean them up and insert them into articles. I bet most of the famous sites have been covered. I formatted your citations on Shirley Plantation, but could you fix up the one about Dictionary of Virginia Biography? I don't know how its title or whatever is supposed to be formatted, without seeing the source, and bonus if you can link to it online because I couldn't find it at a glance. Another RS for your research would be Encyclopedia Virginia. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk)22:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reached Kansas yet, LOL, tho I too grew up in the midwest. For what it's worth, I'm having some trouble with the new Dictionary of Virginia Biography when the articles in hard copy and online differ, and this afternoon can't check the hard copy. Clearly, the hard copy's not going to suffer link rot. The problem is that the modern Dictionary of Virginia Biography barely got into the D's in 2006 before stopping and sort of getting transformed into encyclopediavirginia.org. Lately, I've been cleaning up the wikipedia articles for the older political figures, many of which are mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography (1915), which is no longer under copyright, but really IMHO a bear to use online. It's in five volumes, of which four have indexes, and no volume is alphabetical. Frankly, I can't figure out the organization without the hard copy index, so just cite the hard copy and hope someone can find the digital link. For what it's worth, I have some photos that I haven't uploaded, unfortunately because of personal problems with cyberbullies, though I'm determined that they won't shut me up as promised! I'll check the Shirley Plantation ones tomorrow, because Fairfax's main library has a couple of volumes not at the former main Alexandria library that's much closer to me but also only open limited hours.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's quite a story, overall. If you care to link me to evidence of bullying on Wikimedia, I'll look. If your content is good and with no real abuse committed by you, then I'll support your photos. If your photos are pertinent to some articles without creating WP:UNDUE weight, I'll propagate em if you need technical help. I didn't know I was dealing with such a twisted legacy in my citations, when you're talking about the Dictionary versus the Encyclopedia. ;) That's interesting, and I wish luck to whoever does that for a living. As for the citation I mentioned, just let me know if I did it correctly other than the title and just fix that title for me: {{cite book | first=Albert H. | last=Tillson, Jr. | title=Carter, Charles (1723-28June 1806 | series=[[Dictionary of Virginia Biography]] | date=2006 | volume=3 | pages=57-59}} There's another one at Charles Carter (of Ludlow) that's similarly malformed with typos and I just can't figure it out anyway because all of your citations are not in digital form, so some are cryptically illegible. I hope I've given you a starting point for real formatting, because your awesome research (and a non-paper encyclopedia) demands it! I hope I didn't frustrate you in following a few of your other articles, because I found their work-in-progress prose to be kinda unreadable to a neophyte who didn't read the sources. So I tried to fix it and might have failed. I hope it serves as a pointer on optimizing it, sorry. I just thought you're an excellent contributor so I would follow your interests for a bit. I learned about history too. — Smuckola(talk)08:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, though I daresay that first citation's missing a closing parenthesis. FYI, I haven't messed with the formatting issues because for the last few months I've just been trying to disambiguate various people with the same name -- pushing forward and only intermittently looking back to correct my typos. I got really messed up a few months ago dealing with the Bartholomew Dandridge article, whose initial citation said the author was Kneebone, when he was only the first of four listed editors of the first volume of the Dictionary of Virginia Biography and not the article editor (who was Little, and my attempts to correct the mess look awful!). ;) Also thanks for the help offered about bullying, but I think some jerk who works for some shady but tech savvy investors just is following my contributions, possibly using an AI bot. The guy who threatened me years ago said he represented a group of hackers, lawyers and investors who partnered with telephone companies to track people to get flippable properties, and that "most" insurance companies "participated" in their "program". Soon I was contacted by a Maryland nominal sole practitioner lawyer who acquiesced in the threat by telling me it was my choice whether to sell real estate to them or face consequences, then another stranger using the same name as the original threatener filed a false domestic abuse claim against me, and when he turned up at the Arlington VA courthouse was accompanying by a Russian-born Georgetown Law grad who at various times said that he was employed by a real estate investment group or that man or the first lawyer's Bethesda Maryland firm -- but wasn't even on that website for another year and meanwhile kept using an incorrect address on his VA bar filings and not picking up required certified letters.... It's a long story, but today when I got home lunchtime a cellphone whose number I don't give out but put on the federal do not call list more than a year ago soon rang with an area code 703 nominally Virginia caller (that didn't identify itself and has few google results but which loung.org says has the same carrier as that cellphone), and immediately after logging into wikipedia today I got a web robocall from a 215 nominally Philly number with political connections and overcharge complaints per google and 800notes. Anyway, encyclopediavirginia has not put all the hard copy Dictionary of Virginia Biography articles online, such as Byrd Organization leader Charles Samuel Carter. It does give a couple suggested citation styles that I haven't used, and which also differ from wikipedia's. For what it's worth, both the hard copy Charles Carter of Cleve article and current encyclopediavirginia article were written by Bruce A. Ragsdale; both articles for his son Charles Carter of Ludlow were written by James P. Whittenburg; and both for his son-in-law, Charles Carter of Shirley (who I prefer to call Charles Hill Carter) were written by Albert H. Tillson Jr. I really don't want to take the time to doublecheck that the hard copy and web articles are identical except for formatting.Jweaver28 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helloooooo. Yeah I'd say you fixed that citation. It seems like the date was mangled from your source, so I appreciate you going back to correct those weird dates with the missing parentheses and whatever. I don't know why you could think that phone call spam could be in any way connected to Wikipedia, or could warrant constantly announcing it in edit summaries, but it isn't and you shouldn't! Anyone can get those, especially depending on personal public records such as property ownership. Just get a spam block app and file for info removal. You're also welcome to rename your Wikipedia account. Your technique of saying "this man" and whatnot is clever, and I might adopt that for the wicked challenge I found when writing Walfredo Reyes Jr. because his dad had the same name and profession, and they are III and IV in the lineage, lol. I have a new coincidence for you and I! Maybe you'd have a clue about it. I am researching Kansas City founders, especially Johnston Lykins. A general biography said he was born in Franklin County, Virginia and I'm not sure if that means that there was no such thing as a town there in 1800, or if he was born in county property outside of a town, or what. I don't know why a biography would specify just a county. If this is a lazy question that simply bears more drilling on my part, to keep reading the books and journals, then forgive me! I'm not trying to helplessly saddle you with a task, just wondering if you know offhand. I would like to put him on the list of notable people of Franklin County, Virginia if you know how to find birth records there. I can request the Lykins family bible's genealogy journal from the KS historical society. — Smuckola(talk)22:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the spam is connected to wikipedia publication, in part because of the oral threat I mentioned earlier in this thread, as well as because when I googled early spam phone numbers, many of the pages showed .ru links. Then about a year later, I happened to google a Russian-born UVA computer science grad and found that while he had stopped his fairly minor wikipedia contributions, his day job was in reaggregation of big data for a Philadelphia firm involved in real estate acquisitions. I don't know if he's tutored Secarctangent, who likely is from the Chicago area, and whose contributions this winter seemed to fit a similar pattern -- before flouting wikipedia standards in January, to which I responded on his talk page on March 25. Sunday's cyber harassment that I referred to on the King Carter talk page was pretty creepy, and IMHO likely designed with that bullying end. Though for all I know your objection to my writing (and putting this message on my talk page (just after I began non-anonymous wikipedia editing today and two weeks ago) may indicate your background in real estate or data brokerage) ;). Renaming the wikipedia account seems pretty useless, for the linkage is publication, data brokerage and scraping, and as you've mentioned, property ownership. For what it's worth, I attended a police presentation about info removal last week which said it was really expensive, though since January my scammers all seem to be using it.
Anyhow, Franklin County, Virginia, was barely being developed in 1800, so linkage to a town would have been unlikely, though it was more likely that someone moving there would continue westward (or family members would do so). Census data for that era is limited and only on a county-wide basis. I'm always amused by the contrast between Franklin County's two most renowned former residents -- Gen. Jubal Early and Booker T Washington -- but haven't had to time to work on the history section, which Parkwells cleaned up a bit in 2013. Your new article about Johnston Lykins introduced me to the term "Wea people", which I had never heard before, though I knew of the Miami tribe and Potowatomi Trail of Death. From chatting with an experienced genealogist Saturday when trying to confirm birth records for Spotsylvania County (which was much more developed in that era), I learned that the genealogy even there is often through family bibles. So your intuition that you might need to contact the KS Historical Society seems sound.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well. You're amazing regardless of anything, from the googles on out, and anybody who doesn't get that just needs to suck it. Especially .ru. So there. Don't even get me started about real estate! I'm distracting myself from the unreality of real estate by studying that of the old real estate of all the dead people that I'm forced to live upon and stare at today but not buy. Isaac McCoy wanted to found an Indian Canaan as a whole new unified government state or tribal confederacy, I guess. And his disciple Johnston Lykins actually helped pioneer the Town of Kansas which became Kansas City, Missouri. Good for them. Except oops, after owning what would now be a billion dollars worth of central KC downtown riverfront property including its first mansion, Lykins lost *everything* in the Panic of 1837 or some junk. And yeah that was the first I'd heard of the Wea people and all. I went to a museum and discovered the Hopewell tribe, which doesn't even exist whatsoever on Wikipedia, and vanished from the earth. So okay thanks for the feedback about Franklin County, Virginia, and I'll stick my homie on that article. I've been driving around some more, to visit museums and historical sites and I wish you safe travels likewise! Have fun, take pics! — Smuckola(talk)04:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I started an edit today as a library closed, then went to a nearby IP address where, even though I am still signed into wikipedia and have edited from this location before, I cannot get through the block.Jweaver28 (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another for what it's worth: The online encyclopediavirginia.org has now reached its 1000th digital-only entry (of about 1900 entries). According to this article (that I received via email just before a no message scammer call from probably from a cellphone in Hatboro, Pennsylvania although the number also seems to be from Chesapeake Virginia), the Dictionary of Virginia Biography got to 1400 articles with its third and last volume (ending with the Daniels surname and published in 2006). https://uncommonwealth.virginiamemory.com/blog/2023/12/06/digital-milestone/
I'm trying to post a new article from a public library in Fairfax County. I am signed in and thought I had sufficient rights to do so, having edited numerous wikipedia articles from various Fairfax libraries, but perhaps those elevated rights expires??? Jweaver28 (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems odd only because after finally posting the Inez Baker article at a DC Wikimedia event (the article having remained stuck in my sandbox for many months), on 6 Septeber I used the space to begin an article about Sidney Smith Baxter, which I posted days later. On 16 September 2022 I began another article in that sandbox space about William A.G.Dade, which developed similar research delays and still is in the sandbox. On 26 September 2022, I got an internal wikipedia notice from "wikify" and "look here" about my supposed edit about a Russian city, Izhevsk, which I hadn't made (nor even knew the city and those entitiesexisted).Jweaver28 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nathaniel Claiborne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Innes.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Tollens (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, since I'd like to do it the right way, and submitting via Teahouse didn't work. Unfortunately neither did this, so I used the link at requested moves to request assistance.Jweaver28 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo, I see you added a link to the disambiguation page Hugh Nelson in this edit, and that you've got a lot of posts, above, about linking to disambiguation pages. I've corrected that one to point to Hugh Nelson (Virginia politician), but there is an easy way to avoid linking to disambiguation pages. If you go to "Preferences", "Gadgets", and look under "Appearance" you'll see "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" towards the bottom of the section. Select that tickbox, and whenever you Preview a page you'll be able to see whether you've accidentally linked to a disambiguation page. Thanks, and Happy Editing. PamD15:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for the specific directions. I got to the Preferences/Gadgets/Appearances and even so the first time missed that useful change among the dozens of alternatives.:)Jweaver28 (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's such a useful gadget that I'm delighted to share it. (Retired librarian mode, I think!) Hope you find it useful. PamD20:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Accept reason: Since a) the block on Genastael is one on a particularly active sockmaster and thus softening it is probably not a good idea and b) you have edited unproblematically with your previous long IPBe grants, I think I/we can trust you with it permanently. Happy editing! — Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a public library website, from which about a year ago I anonymously posted the Bailey Washington Jr. article (and then mostly edited it as myself). Today I wanted to edit another Virginia planter/politician article that I contributed, and found not only this website block supposedly started this morning, but that I was unable to supercede it by logging in as myself (as I always do--I don't even care to know how to create a sockpuppet). Two days ago I was able to supercede an autoblock at my usual genealogical research library, in nearby Alexandria, Virginia, by logging in, unlike today. I also admit editing anonymously (as is quite legitimate and legal) because my cyberbullies have been more active this week, particularly after I again complained to a Virginia licensed professional of an organizational data breach back in mid-September.Jweaver28 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back in October 2021, with this edit you introduced the source <ref>Norris p. 153</ref>. The problem is...that source isn't delineated within the article & I can't seem to find it. If you could give some more detail...like the author's complete name or the title of the book or article, that would be very helpful. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight fixed, though the cited massive Westmoreland County history book doesn't have an index, and the genealogy library where I was working on that day isn't open today (Thursday). I also have a notice about an edit by "Matma Rex" on my talk page that I can't see, so that might be the other person referred to in Shearonink's other note. While making this edit, I tried opening that other link, only to get a message about my preview being saved and seeing it instead of both queries. I presume that's some wikipedia glitch rather than my cyberbullies.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matma Rex fixed a code/typo issue that was mashing together several posts. See the before - where 3 separate posts (Unblock request for library wifi address/John Pegram/Need a source you introduced to Augustine Washington) were all mashed-together - and then see the corrected after - where the three separate posts now appear as they should...separately. Matma Rex fixed the errant code of {{unblock-auto|2=<nowiki> by simply removing the typo of "nowiki" which appeared after 2=. No cyberbullies were involved. Shearonink (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Pride, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Paul Carrington and Bill of Rights.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Love (congressman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Gibson.
Since this is not directly about the article, I thought I'd share my experience to explain I removed the citation from the lead.
For the most part, I work with many Featured Articles and Good Articles (The William Farrar related set of articles was an exception: How I got involved in those is a story for another day.) In these, leads have few if any citations. They should summarize the material in the main article, where all the citations go. Though you'll see many exceptions, there are fewer with Featured and Good articles. WP:Lead and WP:Leadcite talk about this, though there are times with controversial information or quotes that a citation is needed in the lead.
If you're interested, I think the articles on Virginia-born presidents are a good illustration of the idea:
Articles with no citations in the lead
James Madison is a featured article with no citations in the lead.
Zachary Taylor, which is neither featured nor good has a citation at the end because it ends with a quote. As per WP:Lead, quotes always require a citation.
John Tyler has one citation at the very end, which contains a string of quotes about him. The citation is probably a late addition, as the format violates Wikipedia guidelines.
Thomas Jefferson has two, neither is appropriate. But Jefferson's article stays pretty dynamic. One gives the dates of his presidency, which is established in the article and one at the end, gives a citation for his few on slavery. This may have been put there because that remains a controversial topic, but it seems unneeded because there is a whole section in the article that makes the cited point.
As an aside: The number of articles you have created is amazing! It looks like you are on your way to creating articles for most of members in the early Virginia polity. Wtfiv (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richmond Public Schools until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
Hello. You have additional answers at WP:Teahouse's talk page. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 05:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
wikimediadc.org.
Dear Jane, thanks for helping with Wikipedia:Meetup/Ocean City, MD/Wiki Loves Small Museums Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=logo}
