User talk:Gwillhickers - Wikipedia

Welcome! Hello, Gwillhickers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. ... Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Thanks for the great image of Constitution's 1947 3c stamp. It's a great photo of an important subject. The article mentions the stamp directly later on at USS_Constitution#Bicentennial_celebrations (near the end of the second paragraph), so I've moved the image there to allow readers to see the stamp where it's mentioned. Thanks again for adding the image! --Badger151 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I've built upon your addition at Battle_of_the_Wilderness#Civil_War_Commemoratives by wikilinking the battles commemorated by the other stamps, but I found three possibilities for Appotomax - Appomattox_Campaign, Battle of Appomattox Station, and Battle of Appomattox Court House. I wasn't sure which of these the stamp was meant to commenmorate, so I chose Appomattox_Campaign, as it incorporated the other two. Is this right? --Badger151 (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to WP, always nice to have more stamp enthusiasts! You might like to join up with the philately project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately, where we keep each other up to date with our activities, discuss plans and standards, etc. You might also be interested in my first attempt at a ships on stamps list, List of ships on stamps, which bogged down a little Stan (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gwillhickers: my apologies for the terse edit summary last night when I reverted your change to the caption (when I occasionally execute rapid keystrokes on my computer it will sometimes treat them as a 'Save Page' command and truncate the text that I typed, which is what happened yesterday).

The difference between your text and mine is not worth arguing about, but your text needs to be corrected since 'Grahm' (Graham) was misspelled which was the reason for my revert. It can also be slightly improved, as shown here:

~ Alexander Graham Bell ~on a 1940 U.S. stamp issue

Since the article already has a left hand side image, I would suggest that the stamp image also be placed on the left side of the section to balance the large statue image above it. Otherwise the stamp is an excellent addition to the article.

I feel additionally that since many dozens of stamps have been issued for Bell as noted in the adjacent paragraph, that the text related to this particular stamp should be inserted into the related article, Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes, where a franked copy of the same stamp is currently shown (and can be replaced with yours). Otherwise many other stamp enthusiasts may also insert additional text related to their Bell stamps, which i.m.h.o. are not highly notable.

Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Archived

Hello. I have moved the experimental foreign U.S. Air Mail section back down to the end of the entry as the intro defines "U.S. Air Mail" as "...the servicing of flown mails by the U.S. postal system within the United States, its possessions, and/or territories ...". and placed in a new section called "Foreign U.S. Air Mail" so that it does not disrupt the chronological flow of information about domestic Air Mail which no longer exists as a separate class of service. Foreign (or international) U.S. Air Mail, on the other hand, still does exist as a distinct class and should probably become its own article eventually. Centpacrr (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, about two weeks ago you asked me about uploading that map to Commons. Rambo's Revenge has kindly given instructions on what to do: see User talk:Rambo's Revenge#Image help. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've actually been pondering this page since you created it, thinking about how it should fit into the system of WP articles. It's a little difficult, for several reasons. First, we haven't yet had much success with articles on topical philately; what are the unique facts that would go into such an article, and what sources would one use? Second, US history on US stamps is broad, encompassing hundreds of issues, but not focussed or especially thematic - every country puts lots of its history on its stamps. If you pick and choose, then you risk turning it into an personal essay or magazine article, which are not suitable for a reference work.

So the thing to figure out is what factual material is going to be at the core of the article, using existing articles as an analogy. (Pictures are nice, but they are never more than adjuncts to article prose... and yes, the wikimedia universe should have a place for extensive galleries, but nobody can agree where.) A good starting approach is to reread some featured articles and think about how you would do what they do. Also, coming back to the reference work idea, think about what facts the readers are looking for; everybody over the age of 10 knows that a country puts its history on its stamps, so what is it that you are adding?

In the topical case, our special problem is that the unique facts are not the historical events, which are well covered in their own articles, nor the developments of routes and rates, but the choice of subject and design process. Fortunately, for many US stamps there is much detail available. To take an example from Gary Griffith's book on the 1922-26 stamps, the Lexington-Concord issue gets 10 pages starting with the act of Congress directing their issuance, through the debate over the subjects to depict, and then describing how the source images were adapted into stamp designs. The 10 pages could actually be summarized into a nice one-page article Lexington-Concord Issue, and I think the overall topical article would just mention this as a part of the 150-year-anniversary group of the 1920s.

It might make sense to first try your hand at writing up details of several notable stamp issues, for instance Columbian Issue could be expanded with more detail. Then you can abstract from the detailed articles into an overview. I'm also thinking that grouping by meta-themes makes sense - anniversary-motivated issues, politically-motivated subjects, historical subjects altered for the stamp issue, subjects/designs that are now outdated by modern scholarship, etc. And again, think about the facts you're presenting that are going to be here and nowhere else in WP. Stan (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Stan, I have moved this thread to the draft page's discussion page.

U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps I am seriously impressed :) mark nutley (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I nominated it for DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

On the left side of the screen, there is Recent Changes. On top of Recent Changes is New Pages. That's how I find articles that I think are good enough for DYK or should be deleted. For information about DYK, read Wikipedia:Did you know. If your article is approved (which I don't see why it wouldn't be), it will appear on the main page for six hours. The quote from your article that I chose is "...that the first U.S. stamp that depicted a space vehicle was issued in 1948?". If you want to request an alt hook, you can go to the entry on Template talk:DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is nice! The Fort Bliss stamp is a good example of the "unique fact" I was referring to previously - even philatelists tend to think space stamps only date from 1957 or so. Another bit that would be good for this page is the extreme secrecy surrounding the Mercury stamp's design and production. Stan (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Another way to view live lists of new pages user the new page patrol tool. User:TheJosh/Scripts/New Page Patroller follow the instructions and you will get a list of recent pages (up to 1000 but not recommended) next to your search bar. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here is a source for your proposed article [1] If i find more i`ll post them here for you. BTW in response to your post on my talk page, i was on recent change patrol, your edit summary caught my eye :) so i looked over the article, no secret radar involved sadly lol mark nutley (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Found a few more for you :) saturday evening post front cover and Horace Greeley good luck mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you messaged me concerning citations for the Isabella I of Castile page but I really have no idea what you're talking about. If I edited it, I do not know when since it has well over 3000 edits. I tried looking but couldn't find my name anywhere on the edit history. And the page is quite adequately cited compared to the majority of other pages, so again I do not know what you mean. Mind clarifying?
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 05:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

hello, I have edited Isabella I of Castile but I havent done any major edits apart from add the section about her children which pretty much speaks for itself. thank you--David (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

In light of the fact, the references below and numerous other sources cite Billy Richardson as a highly likely candidate for the first rider; it is reasonable to include him thus giving the reader an opportunity to make their own conclusion.

• Kansas Historical Quarterly
• National Historic Trail - Pony Express Stables
• Pony Express Resource Study - Chapter 2

Tavington-dash (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC).Reply

Apparently the City of St. Joseph (which is the starting point for the First Westbound rider) agrees: (http://www.stjoemo.info/history/ponyexpress.cfm)Tavington-dash (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I inserted a citation for an article:(http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050320/news_1n20ponyexp.html) about the ad which is considered a hoax by Joseph Nardone, the national executive director and historian for the Pony Express Trail Association.

Tavington-dash (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Tavington-dash (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The thing is that adding the tag without using the talk page to explain what the problem is does not help. If you have a problem with the neutrality of the article then explain the problem at Talk:Alexander Graham Bell. I know that you have commented on the talk page but it's not clear as to why you feel the article violates the NPOV. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I just looked at your user page and noticed User:Gwillhickers/American History on US Postage Stamps. Could you fix the category "History of the United States". As per Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing user pages they aren't supposed to be in there. Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Listed as noted. GWillHickers (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since you seem to want a resolution to the issue of adding images to the article in question, see the talk page and edit history for the latest actions, namely, archiving the previous "string" of discussions. Throughout the recent spate of interactions with other editors, one applicable Wikipedia tenet that can be invoked is: WP:BRD which stands for Bold-Revert-Discuss. Gaining consensus for contentious contributions comes through a discourse on the appropriate article talk pages. FWiW, participating in an international project to create an authoritative global resource requires all contributors to collaborate in a meaningful manner. Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC).Reply

John, aka "GWillHickers", I am pleased to enter into a discussion with you on any topic. Your earnest elaboration on the reasoning behind your latest foray into the realm of Wikiwacky world, elicited a rather curt appraisal on my part; forgive my cursory reference to you as being absorbed in philatelic subjects. Although as you can possibly discern from my profile on Wikipedia or other Internet sites, I also have a passionate interest, that being aviation which has been alternately an avocation and lately, the source of my livelihood. Full disclosure forthwith: Like many others, I choose to participate in this project, but I do have an ulterior motive. As an aviation aficionado, my submissions are not entirely altruistic as I use the forum as a writing and editing exercise, to "keep sharp". Many of the articles I have submitted and even some portions of my books have appeared on Wikipedia, being worked up into a suitable form before proceeding to publication. Shhhhh!, don't tell anyone! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC).Reply

I went to review the situation and comment there because I was asked to review the situation as an administrator. I was away when the message was sent to me so I was delayed in responding but all I did was follow up on a request I received for admin assistance. Sarah 05:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Shortly I will be submitting an appeal to WP to relax size limitations on stamp images released after 1978. The appeal will be on the basis that the USPS is not concerned with size limitations and also that there are no copyright holders who would be compromised by relaxing such limits on size and res' for postage stamp issues as the case might be for copyright holders of album covers, paintings celeb' photos, etc. It would seem this is the definitive distinction that separates stamp images from most of these other types. Any advice, condesending or constructive, is welcomed. GWillHickers (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Reply

Just wanted to drop you a note that I have nominated this article for GA review. It was just sitting there collecting dust in the corner, not even assessed. It is a very good piece in my humble opinion. I will keep my fingers crossed and hope it passes. Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Original 2001 Madison stamp was upgraded and is now orphaned.

Archived

Wow, something of an esoteric introduction I must say, but thank you. I did indeed enjoy the numismatic listing of presidents, and... you know; I actually had no idea where the template image on my user page came from. (I just ported it from another user's page). That's quite nice to know, and with your permission I might use that stamp for my page! Thanks again, and if there's anything you need feel free to come by my page and I'd be glad to help. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The stamp image is a hi'res scan of a stamp in my collection but because the stamp is a product of the Federal gov, issued before 1978, any photo image of these stamps are therefore in the public domain. Anyone can use them. If you have a mind for American history you might want to check out various stamp issues of the U.S. post office issued over the last 160+ years. As I explain on my user page, every major chapter in American history is recorded, celebrated, on US Postage stamps. Esp George Washington. Enough of the stamp lecture. -- Any ideas why Herik's stat page is in repose again? Quite a tool. Earlier I was amazed to see that the George Washington page is viewed an average of 6,000 times per day. On the 4th of July the page was viewed 19,000 times! GWillHickers (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, no... I am not well versed in numismatism and it's quite interesting. Anyway, I have no idea why there is a lack of stat data on the the stat page. However, I've found that if you select "page history" and click the page stats link there it works just fine! For me at least... Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, any time I want to check a page's stats I click 'View History' and then ' Page view statistics'. Today, Aug 2nd, ie.on the Thomas Jefferson page there are no stats for Aug.1 and the last four days of July. Odd. -- Also, if you are not familiar with displaying images, all you have to do is cut and paste the command line for the Minute Man image (in your user discussion page's mark up) to your main user page. GWillHickers (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use Commons categories for files uploaded in Wikipedia only. They are supposed to be uploaded in Category:Fair use images of United States postage. Moreover, this file already exists on Commons: commons:File:Stamp US 1964 5c Kennedy.jpg because it's in PD. --Michael Romanov (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please stop using the uncommon word "issue" instead of stamp or postage stamp which provides a proper and easily understandable meaning. The word issue, often used to refer to offspring or a problem, does not convey the meaning intended to regular readers when reading philatelic articles: in fact I sometimes have to think what you mean. Simplicity is better. ww2censor (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before the term issue is ever used by itself the term stamp issue or postage stamp is used before it, however in all probability there may be exceptions and if and where they occur I will render the term accordingly. GWillHickers (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Around here we use the common name. If you can show, supported by reliable sources that this is the current common name, I am sure we will be happy to use it in future articles. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Archived

Thanks. The stamp section is good. Maybe 3-5 stamps would be alright to put in the section. Any appropriate historical addition to USG is good. He had a commemortive silver coin, maybe others, gold or silver. A USG coin section would be good. That would be a good additional section. What is interesting is the money used back then. Possibly a section on Coinage when Grant was President would be good including paper money. It is hard to find pictures of money from the 1870's, particularly the $1,000 bill. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

...

Hello, Gwillhickers! I recently made this change to the article, but was reverted. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, Tobby72 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edits on Frederikke Federspiel, I couldn't see what the relevance of "Canada 3000 Inc" was to the article. If you were just testing, you should use the sandbox. Apau98 (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You made an edit [2] claiming "Prior sentence was a blatant contradiction. ' '..did not oppose slavery as a politician, although as President he did sign the law that banned the slave trade..' '??" WP:BOP "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." The sources cited indicate that there is no "contradiction", blatant or otherwise. Many pro-slavery people supported a ban on the slave trade in 1807 to protect slavery. Please review WP:V policy where it says that "the source [must] directly support the material in question."

BTW, please pay attention to the talk page because you'll see this particular sentence is currently being debated.[3] You can add your input, but please refrain from making unjustified edits without consensus, particularly those that lack historical accuracy or directly contradict the sources cited. This is why I reverted your edit [4]Ebanony (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

All that said, the sentence as it stood was a contradiction. It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it. In your effort to maintain historical accuracy please try not to overlook the glaringly obvious. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

"It claimed that Jefferson did not oppose slavery and almost in the same breath says he signed a law against it." By signing a law to outlaw the slave trade? First off it said as a politician he did not oppose it, as with legislation or otherwise. Your reading of the text is flawed. If you can't make the simple distinction between the institution of slavery and the slave trade, then I suggest you study the matter. Jefferson in no way made any law against slavery as President - historical fact. Your claim is not supported by the sources, and that violates V policy. If you want to make a change to that section, please discuss it first here: [5] Ebanony (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have moved this thread to the Thomas Jefferson discussion page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you read this guideline on canvassing and see why what you did here is different from what I did here.

Yes, I see the difference. You flattered and complimented Drk' and then asked him to drop by, whereas I simply related a short account of the discussion and asked Collect to drop in also, as he was part of the discussion originally and came to the discussion on his own accord originally. You said you were tired of the arguments but you keep dragging these fuzzy topics to the table and creating new ones. Gwillhickers (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gwillhickers! I saw that you are manually archiving some parts of the talk page. However, the page is archived by User:MiszaBot IMiszaBot. If it gets to long, I suggest simply reducing the 90 day age for archiving. Mixing manual and automatically generated archives is not impossible, but tricky - it's probably best to attach the manually archived material to the youngest existing archive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, we have to do something. The discussion page was a mile long, making it more difficult to follow more than one discussion when editing. Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to ask you once: You archived some of the discussions I had here [6]; you did not do so properly, and chopped off text in mid stream, which is confusing, and distorts meaning. Please make an immediate correction to any and all text of mine you moved by restoring it to the talk page. The talk page has guidelines, I've warned you about them before. You don't have my permission to do that, and there is a 90-day bot for a reason. WP:TPO.Ebanony (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

See my note on the talk page [7], and:

2nd your remarks look like "1. Direct rudeness": "filling the talk page up with nonresponsive redundancy, habitual evasiveness and meaningless generic overlinking at the rate you have been dumping it". Policy on this:

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")

You've made comments like this several times, which I've ignored "evade the issue in your usual 2-dimensional, myopic fashion" [8]; this is an outright accusation of lying "Please make more of an attempt to be truthful with your claims." [9] Now it's getting out of hand. Please "Strike it out (using HTML strikeout tags)";　"you are little more than a die hard aggressor which seems to be consistent with the fact that your only interest in Jefferson is trying to associate him with Hemings." [10]; "This is another one of your distortions" [11]; you make claims that are patently false about numerous editors "Why do some individuals hope/insist it was TJ?" [12] (neither I nor others claim he did it); a clear case of lack of assuming WP:GF "This is absurd, out of place and again gives undue weight to a THEORY, no matter how many people want to believe it, or hype it out of proportion for their own sordid reasons, it is still just that, a theory with a lot of other variables to consider, or sweep under the rug, as your case may be. [13]; "I suppose you can throw that one on the pile of other unproven theories and speculations that have frothed from the mouths of pot-head college prof's and their mentors since the 60's. (That occurred in the 20th century also, btw.); "-- Also, if sources like Finkelman are as you claim and are in goose-step with your (very) narrow vision of Jefferson" [14] (I warned you about this [15]); "but unless you can use them to back up these claims you are no different than a jackass with a load of books on its back." [16]; more accusations of bias "Still, even with birth-dates you or any of these sources have fallen way short of that 'goalpost' in the attempt to pin this on Jefferson" [17].

This: "Agree Ebanony is clearly obsessed with this issue, has exposed himself to be completely without NPOV and in my opinion acts out of malice given this grossly disproportionate inclusion of Hemmings material." [18]

Your comments are uncivil and should be removed or withdrawn. Please remove them.Ebanony (talk) 10:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your opinion. In my opinion some, certainly not all, of the references were appropriately frank and were based on experience with this sort of gaming If this matter has proven to be that upsetting for you please feel free to do what you like with the discussion page, that is if the others don't mind you plucking out individual statements for your own personal reasons, and if you like, by all means bring it to the attention of whomever you may think is best suited to look into this matter further. Then perhaps we can have some real dialog as to what should be done with the Jefferson/discussion pages regarding the undue weight that has been given the Hemings controversy. Gwillhickers (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gaming? Don't know anything about it. All I asked was that you remove or strike out such comments because they're uncivil, and distract from the conversations. Ebanony (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

They were frank characterizations that are typical in many heated debates. It would seem someone who has embarked on the scene of such controversy for as long as you have would by now have developed sort of an immunity to these things -- in the effort of staying on track of the more important issues. If these particular items are going to derail your efforts that easily I simply don't know what to tell you. You have made some serious and sweeping comments, "torture" , that it was "undisputed", and never responded to fair questions ("I'm not your tutor") regarding the exact source, or why this term isn't used in the article, sourced. Instead you jump topic and/or retreat with these lengthy and frequent overtures about guidelines, which at this point have become a blur. I can only promise you I will make an effort to refrain from such characterizations in the future. At the same time you might want to give some thought as to why these things occur. Presently I am not very motivated with cooperating with you as you have not been straightforward and responsive on the important items. i.e.Undue weight, "torture" and the sources for it. On the other hand, if you want to square off with some of the tough questions that would certainly be a sign of cooperation, of which then I would have no trouble of reciprocating. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

What is at issue is the way you speak, the insinuations you make, and your belligerent speech. You said "I can only promise you I will make an effort to refrain from such characterizations in the future". Unfortunately, you have not. This appears to be a threat "Please watch it." [19] There is a code of conduct WP:EQ, as well as a policy on civility WP:CIV. See "other uncivil behaviours" (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings. I suggest a) you edit your comment to remove the remark; or b) you strike out the remark.Ebanony (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lying

I've been more than patient with you, but no, I did not "lie" at any point, and I am not "on mediation" [20]. You should immediately remove the aforementioned claims from the talk page.Ebanony (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You said I removed Hemings name from the lede, I did not. Then you said I removed the entire lede section, I did not, you said I claimed Hemings forced herself on Jefferson which I did not. There are other examples. Now you stand there and say you didn't lie at any point. When you correct all the lies in discussion and leave a note in edit history about the lie you left there, then we'll talk about any requests you have for me. Not until. Suggest you leave someone another notice. The Jefferson and discussion pages needs more attention anyway. Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, there is no lying, but perhaps you have trouble reading. If you bothered to read the talk page, I already answered this twice [21] & [22]. You're making something very small into something big. Now, regarding the Hemings fringe theory you spoke of, you speculated she initiated a relationship with him ie seduction of a grieving man. "Forced herself" (again I already this elsewhere [23]), is a paraphrase of the baloney conspiracy theory you invented or took form the fringest of places. I have no need to retract; I'm not the one inventing history or promoting racist ideas. You have no qualms about degrading black women & inventing stories, but have the nerve to discuss honesty??? What should we call your invented history, honest? Please. Ebanony (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I read and write quite well thank you, i.e. this is your quote from edit history (14:30, 3 March 2011):
Gwillhickers Stop making unilateral edits to remove Hemings from the Lead -
you have no concensus...
-- Please quote at least two "unilateral edits" (you did refer to more than one) where I do ANYTHING that even approaches removing the name from the lede. As for your other linked references, this is just damage control after the fact, made in an obvious attempt to gloss over this lie of (00:53, 5 March 2011):
'You didn't have the audacity to claim a child forced herself on him?
Your comments are insulting..
and also (01:07, 5 March 2011):
.. making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself
on Jefferson & take advantage of him..
In yet another example you say in no uncertain terms (12:12, 3 March 2011) ..
Gwillickers gave no valid reason for removing the entire lead section and
replacing it with poorly sourced content..
As for your straw man accusation of "fringe theory", you are again, merely trying to take something said on a discussion page and pass it off as something I want to include in print on the main page. Again, mention was made by at least two editors I know of who said in so many words that no one knows the nature of the relationship. All I did at this point was to say this.. And we don't know if it was Hemings who perhaps approached and took advantage of
a grieving man longing for his wife, for her own purposes, which may have included love..
to which you replied (01:07, 5 March 2011) ..
..making up the disgusting claim that Hemings tried to force herself on
Jefferson & take advantage of him. Yes, you're inventing history!
And of course to finish it off you now close with another lie claiming I am trying to "invent history" when all I did was mention one of any other likely possibilities. Again, your tendency to even control what is mentioned on a discussion page only demonstrates that it is you who has abandoned all POV. Your pattern of behavior and repeated outright lying is now a matter of record. If you would like to make additions to this record, please feel free. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not Schultz (although I may sadly approach his waistline), and I'd really prefer it if you don't make really really mistaken statements about the sources I provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

What "mistaken statement" was that, for some reason you forgot to mention that, also. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The claim that the birth dates of Hemings children are not at this link. Also see my extended comment added here to the main discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually did comment there a while back, and I think we were on roughly the same side, at least as concerns mentioning the Hemings business in the lead. That page is a damn mess, but at least there are a lot of editors who care about it. Harrison doesn't inspire the same devotion, I guess. --Coemgenus 14:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:CANVAS and don't do it again. If you want neutral extra input, consider a Request for Comment.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have notified current users of the talk page, including you and Ebanony, to the discussion. Outside of the discussion I have also contacted others interested in history who exhibited no POV what so ever about, slavery, Hemings, etc. If I had only approached people with a decided bias about slavery and/or Hemings you might have a legitimate issue for which you could avoid the other with. I will continue to canvas as I see best fit for this ongoing situation, one that you seem to have a long history in. If you think you have some sort of case about Canvasing by all means pursue it. (Btw, No Spamming, looked for people interested in history, and contacted a couple of administrators with no POV about the issue. There was no Campaigning as a neutral notification and request was posted only, the same one present on your talk page. There has been no Vote-stacking, notified common members of the discussion page, including Stephan Schulz and Ebanony. Outside of the discussion no one who has exhibited any POV about Hemings or even slavery issues was approached. Stealth canvassing, not many people leave emails, so that one is out.) Meanwhile there is a glaring undue weight problem in the lede and in the body of text that you seem to be avoiding here. You seem to have little concern, in practice, for undue weight policy, so I find it sort of difficult to believe your abjection to policy now is anything close to sincere. Gwillhickers (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have you read WP:CANVAS? It describes, in a conveniently coloured table, inappropriate canvassing as anything that is "Mass posting OR Biased OR Partisan OR Secret" (emphasis mine). Yoy have spammed well over 20 people. As I wrote, the acknowledged way to bring in new views is a RfC, not mass posting. And we do not substitute discussion by voting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have read the colorful chart before, and have even referred to it above, so it would appear that you are merely repeating yourself with the generic reference to policy. Unless you can present an actual violation of some sort I think your time would be better spent addressing the issue that for some reason you continue to avoid. There is also nothing stopping you from submitting a RfC. Gwillhickers (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, discussion is resolved by consensus. Voting establishes consensus. It would seem you have very little of it. Discussion is also resolved by pointing out flagrant violations of UNDUE weight policy, in this case. Gwillhickers (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've asked for another opinion at WP:ANI#Canvassing_at_Thomas_Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is usually best to avoid to appear to be canvassing; asking for people to come and vote isn't necessarily a problem. But picking people not previously involved in the discussion is discouraged - instead the WP:RFC process was developed as a way to draw in uninvolved editors for comment. FWIW, also, straw polls such as you have started are also, in general, discouraged because we prefer consensus arising out of discussion. At the very least it is suggested that we "!vote" - which is to give an opinion and then explain/discuss it. Straw polling can have it's place though in a limited context, and I haven't looked into great detail at that particular talk page to judge either way :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the word of caution. I made an effort to bring attention to this matter in an all around unbiased manner I believe. Aside from notifying current discussion members I notified a few editors familiar with history and biography, none of whom expressed any POV about even slavery, much less Hemings. Currently I am also leaving notices on president's discussion pages. If there is a policy violation of some sort involved there I am sure someone will bring it to my attention. Gwillhickers (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply