User talk:Hoppyh/Archive 1

Garfield

Thanks for the compliment! I believe President Garfield's article needs expansion. I have previously edited President Garfield and put his main points in his Inaugural address because he was unable to complete his term in Office. His Civil War Record could be expanded along with his career in the House of Representatives. I believe his term in the House of Representatives was his most significant political contribution to the U.S. His assassination ruined what appeared to be a good Presidency. The other issue with Garfield is that former Pres. Ulysses S. Grant was hovering in the background and attempted to influence Garfield's Presidency. Grant was involved with the Sen. Conkling controversy. Grant, himself, set a precedent for Civil Rights activity for the President, the Ku Klux Klan Acts and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Garfield appears to have a concern for African Americans. What would Garfield have done for Civil Rights? Much of his Inaugural Address concerns the education of African Americans. Also, Pres. Grant may have been harassed by Garfield's assassin, Charles J. Guiteau, in either 1876 or 1877. Grant may have talked about this after Pres. Garfield was assassinated. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Garfield also was part of a succession of General Presidents from Ohio. President Grant was a General and may have been from either Illinois or Ohio. President Lincoln was from Illinois, however, he was not a General. Presidents from the Mid West dominated the Presidency up until Warren G. Harding. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing queries in the James A. Garfield article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your congratulations. You did much of the work. Congratulations! Cmguy777 (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vote needed

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

Issue resolve request

Navy decline and Star Route Postal Contracts Hello Carmarg4. Another editor and myself are discussing Star Route postal contracts and naval decline in the President Hayes article talk page. The above is a link to this discussion. If you have time, can you please give input into the discussion. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a note about this and be sure to check it in the future. I'm not sure when that will be. I don't want to weigh in without being conversant about the facts. I will need to get up the learning curve.Carmarg4 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Progress in Mid-March

Your attention and input is needed again on the Thomas Jefferson talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Long Branch meeting

The meeting took place June 24 and 25, 1881. I suppose that may have been Garfield's last official duty as President. He reviewed the Seventh Regiment. That NYT's article makes the meeting sound like a large party. His full cabinet was there and former President Ulysses S. Grant. I am not aware if USG and Garfield met each other. There may have been friction over the Conkling issue and senatorial courtesy. Apparently when Garfield got to the Ocean Hotel parlor he was whisked away into a private room for a drink with newspaper editors. The Veterans put on a dinner that evening, however, he had to leave the event after getting the news his 80 year old uncle died in a train accident. Sec. Windom gave a speech in Garfield's place. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the article links:

• The Cabinet At Long Branch

• Long Branch All Alive

• Visitors At Long Branch

• The Death Of Thomas Garfield

I believe there is enough in the NYT's articles for a section in the JAG article. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Long Branch meeting was one week before President Garfield was shot. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think an edit got cancelled out (we collided in mid air and I lost I think). Peskin overlooks Long Branch (Guiteau was plotting already). I made a note of this and the other items you mentioned for later research. But for now, I have finished Peskin's book and am midway thru a final proof of the article. Feel free to add what you have. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. I was unaware of the edit clash. After Long Branch, there is one week up to Garfield's shooting. I can check and see if anything occured then. Possibly Garfield had to travel to Cleveland for his uncle's funeral. Two tragedies occured in the Garfield family in less then two weeks. Garfield's uncle killed by an 80 mph train, and the woman, a relative or inlaw of Garfield, traveling with his uncle was seriously injured. Then Garfield himself was shot only week later. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Struck gold! On June 25, 1881 Grant met Garfield at the Elberon Hotel. Grant took off his hat, bowed his head to Garfield, and shook hands. The two talked for three minutes, then Grant departed. Whatever cool riff was between them over Senator Conkling must have ended that day. There was a "buzz of excitement" as the two met in person. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link:

• The President At Long Branch

Cmguy777 (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln

Hello, Carmag. I have put Abraham Lincoln through a peer review and intend to nominate it in FAC. I have noticed you are the main contributor and want your permission to do so before hand. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm delighted you want to nominate it. Actually, my own personal view on nominations is that a major contributor should not be envolved in the nominating; but, having said that, I'll be happy to help with the fixes that are suggested. The article has really been through the ringer - on a previous FAC, then a GA. Keep me posted if you like, and I'll help as I can. Thanks again, Pal.Carmarg4 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The reviewers on the review page would like you to comment on there. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 21:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have support in the article, what should we do about the beliefs section? Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 02:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it best to see if anyone else has the same concern. If it does need abridging, it will require some very soft treading. My own approach when I worked on it some time ago was to stick with Lincoln's words and the context in which they were said. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Hi, I think you're doing great work at this article. Do you mind the way I'm commenting there? If you're satisfied already with the way the article is, then I could give it a rest, and may give it a rest anyway. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't being clear, but I meant the first sentence on the maintenence tags in the first sentence. That kind of bugs me. The section overall is fine, but I am more worried about the first sentence. Thanks. Guy546^(Talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the sentence and its source to the talk page. Please review the first paragraph and make sure it looks okay w/o it. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine. Guy546^(Talk) 20:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks yourself, since you did most of the work on the article, and we even got one support from it. :) Guy546^(Talk) 20:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite needed: "He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help."

Lincoln FAN Drafts

Supreme Court appointments and state appointments as requested by FAN

Lincoln's declared philosophy on court nominations was that "we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known."(cite is Donald p.552) Lincoln made five appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Noah Haynes Swayne, nominated January 21, 1862 and appointed January 24, 1862, was chosen as a slavery opposing lawyer, who was also committed to the Union. Samuel Freeman Miller, nominated and appointed on July 16, 1862, supported Lincoln in the 1860 election and was an avowed abolitionist. David Davis, Lincoln's campaign manager in 1860, nominated December 1, 1862 and appointed December 8, 1862, had also served as a judge in Lincoln's Illinois court circuit. Stephen Johnson Field, a previous California Supreme Court justice, was nominated March 6, 1863 and appointed March 10, 1863, and provided geographic balance, as well as political balance to the court as a Democrat. Finally, Lincoln's Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, was nominated as Chief Justice, and appointed the same day, on December 6, 1864; Chase also brought to the court his experience as U.S. Senator and Governor of Ohio.

The following is a draft of a paragraph on admission of states:

West Virginia, admitted to the Union June 20, 1863, made up the former westernmost counties in Virginia, which had essentially seceded from Virginia when Virginia seceded from the Union. Nevada was admitted October 31, 1864. Lincoln was not actively involved in the admission of either.

[Cites available from Donald]

Comments about drafts

Hi. You requested comment on the draft above. So, I'll look it over.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Donald, page 552, quotes Lincoln's attitude about SCOTUS nominations: "we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore we must take a man whose opinions are known." Maybe worth quoting or paraphrasing here. This particular quote was in reference to Chase, and Chase's opinion about the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Ironically, Chase flipped his position on legal tender after he got to SCOTUS, but the flip occurred in 1870 (Hepburn v. Griswold) long after Lincoln was gone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Field turned out to be the second-longest serving associate justice in history. See List_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_Justices_by_time_in_office. But maybe this is trivia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe say explicitly that West Virginia seceded from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the Union?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• It is definitely better than a list, but I was thinking of something more along these lines that explains why these men were nominated and how they fared in the Senate. Maybe another source would have more info. Have you considered Sandburg? Lots of libraries have it. --Coemgenus 22:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At least we are on the right track. I'll try to improve. We still will need someone to collaborate who knows how to change the layout properly before the switch to prose. It's here whenever someone comes along. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the layout. By the way, it would also be worth mentioning whether Congress changed the size of the Supreme Court during Lincoln's tenure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Draft of analysis on Lincoln

The following is a draft of section=recent analysis as requested in FAN:

Biographer Doris Goodwin has in 2005 provided a best selling analysis of Lincoln, gleaned from his relationships and interactions with those immediately surrounding him. In regard to his initial political success in 1860, departing from the more traditional conclusion that his election was a matter of chance, Goodwin maintains his victory was illustrative of Lincoln's shrewdness, when considered in a comparison of Lincoln's background as a pioneer backwoods lawyer, with the rival candidates, who were products of the social and political establishment of the time. Lincoln compensated for this deficiency by way of greater self-reliance and fierce ambition, combined with extraordinary political acumen.

Goodwin maintains Lincoln revealed a most exceptional style of leadership when, after his election, he then incorporated his opponents into his administration. This, despite the distinct possibility that these more well known, better educated and more experienced personalities could likely eclipse the still more obscure president. The degree of success in the cabinet establishes Lincoln's ability to overcome strong egos attended by resentment and jealousy, which could otherwise have led to disaster.

Goodwin also argues that Lincoln, who grieved the losses of his children, rather than being handicapped in any way by his melancholy nature, was in fact strengthened by it, as many artists are, displaying a greater degree of creativity and sensitivity. These attributes facilitated his achievements in the midst of leading a nation at war with itself. Instead of being immobilized by depression, Lincoln was spurred to action. His ability to thus cope with his own moods enabled him to assist his cabinet and others in their time of internal conflict and stress. This ability also prevented him from being provoked or otherwise handicapped by grievances against him, including real threats of assassination.

[Goodwin, Team of Rivals pp. xvi-xix. - reference is in the article]

Comments on draft

Wlink Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, and say "2005" instead of "in recent years".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding Goodwin's departure from the notion that Lincoln was just lucky, maybe the luck thesis could be explained a little bit. Per a piece in the Boston Globe: "It didn't hurt that his home state was Illinois, essential to any Republican victory in 1860. Also the GOP convention that year was held in Chicago.... [Seward] had a serious drawback: too much experience. A longtime Whig elected to the New York state Senate in 1830, the bold Seward had ginned up a hornet's nest of ruthless enemies and duplicitous backstabbers. With Seward an outspoken antislavery advocate, many GOP delegates fretted that his radical past would prohibit him from winning the general election. (After all, he had lost the Republican presidential nod to John Charles Fremont in 1856 for that very reason.) Enter the centrist Lincoln, whom Seward at first dismissed as a 'comparative unknown.'" So, not only was Lincoln from a key state needed for victory, but also that key state was hosting the GOP convention, and luckily Lincoln didn't have a long record that could be easily attacked.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe include one other source besides Goodwin. Goodwin has rivals. For example, see here comparing Goodwin's analysis to the analysis of Lincoln in Joshua Wolf Shenk's "Lincoln's Melancholy".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's it. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I must say, as I originally did, that I am still uncomfortable with adding analytical content to the article. We have had one reviewer raise this concern - no hew and cry at this point. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic in approach. The better method I believe is to direct the reader to the analytical sources for further reading. This addresses the concern over the size of the article (we are even now discussing additional factual detail in the appointments area.) As a reviewer has said, there is an inestimable amount of analysis out there and if we start down that road, many voices will want, and then will have the right, to be represented. The matter will then quickly morph into a huge POV problem. That's my take, this morning anyway. Carmarg4 (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that analysis should be minimal. I've read more than once (always unsourced) that Lincoln is the subject of more books than anyone other than Jesus Christ. True? Who knows? But there is an avalanche of Lincoln scholarship waiting to fall on whomever tries to write the analysis section of his wiki article. --Coemgenus 14:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I was just commenting on the draft. I don't feel strongly that evaluation material needs to be added, or if so how much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Honest Abe

Your work has much improved Lincoln's article. Let's continue to tune it up and submit to a peer review before trying again for FA. The nomination was premature, but it's clearly heading in the right direction. --Coemgenus 14:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Carmarg4. You've improved the article a lot, and I'm sure it will ultimately get featured if you and Coemgenus and the gang push it over the finish line. It's definitely a public service. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Lincoln page & Airmail stamp

You have mail here. Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Hoppyh. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Connormah (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Confederates

No prob. I thought the idea that Booth acted on the CSA's orders was kind of fringe-y. I don't doubt that he associated with rebels, I just wanted to make it clear that Jeff Davis didn't order Lincoln's assassination.

This article is a nightmare, but at least this particular issue is easy to resolve. --Coemgenus 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Have you seen this? It might be the solution to some of our long-term presidential biography problems. Your participation would be useful, if you have the time. --Coemgenus 13:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that you need to do anything but sign on to the discussion (and make any changes if you think the summaries are wrong or missing something) but I'm not totally certain. Your idea about asking an admin for help is a good one. I've never worked on one of these, and I don't think Brad has either. --Coemgenus 15:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gwillhickers. The two users who have unresolved issues with Gwill are Coemgenus and Parkwells. Those two editors must certify that they've tried to resolve an issue with Gwill and failed. Only those two editors (from what I can understand) must reply at the Rfc in the Users certifying the basis for this dispute section within 48 hours or the RfC will be invalid. Other editors like myself can post in the Other users who endorse this summary section. Brad (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Carmarg, I think you could also sign on as certifying, if you want. You've got as many "unresolved issues" with GWilly as anyone. --Coemgenus 20:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, you could sign under "users certifying..." unless someone else gets there first. --Coemgenus 20:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Negative Capability

It appears you quite rightly added this recently at Abraham Lincoln#Historical reputation. Could you add a few words or phrases or reformulate to clarify what is meant by 'toward fact or reason.' That currently seems like a somewhat muddled critical assessment toward Lincoln ('he does not care about fact or reason'), but that was not apparently meant, rather the opposite ('he deals well with uncertainty, and realizes logic will not be able to answer everything' (I gather after too much pondering)). Also, if you know anything about Negative Capability, I have asked for a hopefully small clarification (on a different issue) on that page, as well. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This was taken from Donald; he did not expound on it further and it is my first encounter with the concept. It may help to add a qualifier that it is intended as an illuminating trait of leadership, hence a positive not negative connotation. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject US Presidents

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

GW RfC proposal

I've been working up a proposal to resolve the RfC, here. Feel free to edit it or place comments on its talk page. I think it's pretty fair and, if he'd adopt it, would solve our problems. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

USS Vermillion, etc.

Nice to hear from you! Part of the reason I keep a ridiculously huge and detailed User Page is that I hope others will read it and find something useful there. The stuff about "what I ignore" helps to keep me sane in the face of contentious discussions with ignorable editors. It's REALLY useful to bear in mind that "the way of a fool is right in his own eyes."

It's nice to hear from somebody else with an AKA/LKA connection. I've made it my business to be interested in all the ships of that type. My ship, USS Rankin (AKA-103), is having a joint reunion in October with USS Muliphen (AKA-61). We've kind of figured out that those who served on the same kind of ship have a lot in common, no matter where or when they served.

Interesting to hear about Dr. Harrison. He was truly one of the pioneers in what has become a miraculous and life-saving field of medicine. When I was involved in the manufacturing side of it, we used to joke that nothing else we would ever do would be as exciting/rewarding. That turned out to be pretty much true.

Interesting to see that you're a Redskins fan. LaVar Arrington's picture was in our local paper today, being inducted into the local high school athletic Hall of Fame. He went to my local high school, and I remember reading about him when he was in the ninth grade. He was huge and overwhelming, even back then.

You may remember that one of my interests is in personality type. I've got a book that retrospectively analyzes the personality types of all the presidents up to Clinton or so. It's pretty interesting. It's 'Presidential Temperament', by Ray Choiniere and David Keirsey.

That's it for now. I'm off to a local gathering of Wikipedia editors. They've had two or three of them here, but this is the first I've been able to get to. Lou Sander (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page

You might want to consider archiving older posts on your talk page instead of deleting them. You can do it by: Create a page called User talk:Hoppyh/Archive 1 (with link brackets around it) and cut and paste most of the posts over to the page. Later, other archives pages can be named, User talk:Hoppyh/Archive 2, etc. Most people don't move their barnstars or they create an awards page (but, I don't know how to do that). If you have any other questions about it, here is the instruction page link: Help:Archiving a talk page. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. Hoppyh (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Jefferson

Okay, I can't resist helping out on this one. What's the best way for me to lend a hand--as a collaborator or GA reviewer? I haven't read deeply into the article yet and don't know what remains to be done (I see you're still tinkering a bit). But I'm up for either. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(I'll be glad to officially tear up your Wikipedia pension checks.) I'm not the best judge of what role to assume in the GA process. I would say that 1) it's hard to believe someone who is adept as a GA reviewer will not soon come along, and 2) there have been almost NO other editors at work here and I have been at this article to the point of being blinded to clear missteps. So, I would recommend the article needs you most as a collaborator. My own emphasis is to improve the article and let the GA rating process come when it will. Hoppyh (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'll read through more deeply this coming week and come up with a to-do list. Superficially it looks strong, though, so I don't think there'll be much left. Looking forward to it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, on the more detailed side of things - I have gone through the footnotes and the refs and attempted to make the formats consistent. I have also checked the links in them and removed dead ones. Hoppyh (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Great! I've started nibbling around the edges today, mostly doing MOS tweaks. Feel free to revert anything you don't like. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The more I dig into this the more I appreciate how solid you and others have already made it. Really nice work! I'm doing a lot of fiddling and a little cutting but I don't think there's going to be much left to do but that. Hopefully our GA reviewer feels the same way.

I notice you also have Washington and Adams on your list as GAs. Is Madison next? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I usually try to take a Wiki vacation after doing one of these...I did Adams and went right from him into Jefferson without a break. I know I have to be available to go to work if and when a reviewer comes in here. So after that I should definitely walk away for awhile, with a Vince Flynn book maybe. Madison would be a great candidate though...the Founding Fathers are my favorite (Benjamin Harrison was an ancestor.) I will look definitely forward to it though. Thanks for your kind word and accolades as always...they are inspiring...and thanks for coming back in. Hoppyh (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Very cool. Madison's on my long-term list as well (I took the Bill of Rights article through GA a few years back and still have some of the sources). I think Jimmy Carter will be my next project, though... there's an unfortunate ticking clock element there now that he's something like 128 years old. I'd love to have his article up to GA before the sad day comes that we lose him. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me know and I'll be glad to collaborate. Hoppyh (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I definitely will. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You'll get a kick out of this - plus it won't hurt for me to make the disclosure. I am quite sure I have not committed any bias in my editing of Jefferson, but you will notice my use in the article of a reference - The Life of Thomas Jefferson by George Tucker (1837). This was the first comprehensive biography of Jefferson...authored by my GGG grandfather. Hoppyh (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That's very cool that you're following in his footsteps almost two centuries later; I doubt my GGG grandfathers ever wrote anything but account books for their farms.

Have you checked if age is an issue for this counting as a reliable source? (The question probably is, can we determine if this publisher had "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?) I think it's cool that you've worked it into the article, though, and don't have a problem with it for the sort of basic biographical facts it looks like you used it for. Uncontroversial information like that technically doesn't require citation at all; if a later reviewer raps our knuckles, we can easily cite that stuff elsewhere. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your point is a good one about the age. I was careful to use the reference sparingly and only in citing the more indisputable facts. I believe the work is cited in the bibliographies of both Malone and Peterson. The Edinburg Review is quoted in Tucker's article as having given the work a positive review wayback when.Hoppyh (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd caught your ancestor in an error just now, but it turns out (per the Library of Congress) it was Joseph Ellis who had the Senate ratification vote on the LP wrong. Great-grand-Hoppyh: 1; Modern history: 0. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, ye of little faith. Hoppyh (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas Jefferson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thomas Jefferson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I don't want to fail the article, and I see that work is progressing. I had a discussion with Gwillhickers, and although it didn't go so well, I see that his overall conception of the article improvement process is at odds with consensus and best practices. I see that this alternate approach of his has been a problem before in other areas. I'm mostly unhappy that he refuses to accept the burden, that the onus is on him to add the relevant material to the daughter articles, not on the editors who are trying to fix the problems. At the end of the day, what we have here is a classic ownership issue involving the primary contributor. And while we can attempt to improve the article and get it through the GA process, you may have to rely on talk page consensus to attain this goal. With that said, I will now continue the review. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I had perceived the proprietary issue myself. The history I have mentioned was resolved through consensus on talk p. as well. I'm delighted you have decided to persevere with us here. I think the article has benefitted greatly just since your review began. I hope you are seeing progress and not just instability. On a procedural point, would you prefer all our edit exchanges (e.g. below) to take place on the review page? If so let me and Khazar2 know. Thanks so much again. Hoppyh (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I am a very informal reviewer. Please do whatever it takes to get the job done. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any problem integrating most of this information into the daughter articles myself, though I'll focus on the main article until the review is done. I agree that theoretically the burden should be on Gwillhickers, but if that's what it takes to keep the article going forward, I don't mind spending the hour or two to move this stuff around at a later date.

Thanks from me too for your patience with this review. Even if it ends up failing, simply having a GA reviewer show up to endorse our efforts will make all the difference in talk page discussions there. Luckily I think we've got enough consensus now (you, me, hoppy, and VAHistorian) for reduction that the road ahead should be clear. Onward to GA, hopefully! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

To FA?

The more I work on this, the more interested I am in trying to take it through FA. I've never done one (though I did collaborate on an FL), and an article this important would benefit from the extra review even if it doesn't pass. And what you guys have already done here is so great that it's hard to believe much more will be needed. What do you think? I'm happy to take point on that if you're not interested.

So I apologize for being so, so picky in my revisions about things that clearly won't matter at GA. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to help with whatever you do. Query whether the GA nom needs to be cancelled first...I have no idea of the protocol. It's on my watchlist. Hoppyh (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that it'll be to our benefit to get it through GA first, and then probably request peer review. I know a few people who have passed multiple FAs--I'll see if they can take a look down the road. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there's one Tucker citation that still needs a volume number--right now it's fn316, but may move with the morning's tweaks and cuts. Tucker, 1837, p. 202. Can you fill that one in? Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review begun! Hoppyh (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I doubt I'll be as busy there this week as last, but will be glad to lend a hand if anything tricky comes up. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I would be grateful for you to look at the reviewer's comments about the lead and then look at my changes there. If you can improve feel free. Hoppyh (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, will take a shot at it tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I will make a note on the review page. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten to the lead yet. Wanted to fix a few other things bugging me first to get those conversations moving. I'll take a pass tomorrow at the latest, but I like your changes so far... -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think at this point we're done. Hoppyh (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a big improvement, thanks! I want to re-read WP:LEAD tomorrow and then take a new look just in case. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

First-ish political party

In American Creation, JJ Ellis has a good chapter on Jefferson and Madison's organization of the Dem-Repubs and how it laid the groundwork for the American two-party system. I'm thinking I'll add a few sentences to the Election of 1800 section tomorrow that mention this, Jefferson's political partnership with Madison, and the issues involved in that election. I should be able to do this quickly from Ellis and Wood, and I actually have a book all about TJ and Jemmy together that I haven't even cracked open yet. Presumably that introduction will give a good pull quote about how the men worked together. Sound like a good addition? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also on the subject of Madison, we should probably add a sentence (maybe in the historical evaluation section) about the so-called "Virginia Dynasty", noting that TJ and his disciples held the presidency for 32 straight years. I think Meacham has some good material on this. I'll try to add that tomorrow too, and you can let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Getting close now

I feel like it's really coming along. I don't think much else needs to be removed, and the citation has improved significantly. Thanks as always for filling so much in. Don't know if we'll make GA this time but we should come close.

I've still got a couple things I hope to add--a note on how long Jefferson and his disciples ran the country, a few sentences on his partnership with Madison in forming the Democratic Republican party, issues in the election of 1800, and a paragraph about Jefferson's leaving Washington DC for the last year of his presidency. Maybe something in Legacy about how Jeffersonian democracy became the new American norm (Appleby has a quotable page on this). Anything still left on your list? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am done. Hoppyh (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of Tucker, have you considered trying to get that to GA? I was looking at that article yesterday and it seems like it's ready. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been suggested. Perhaps a future effort. Hoppyh (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Request

It's easier for me to communicate with you here to avoid any drama. Could you do me a favor and reread the lead? I think it can be trimmed a bit. We don't need to know about his children and you can probably cut the whole "He advanced his convictions by assuming influential political positions, producing formative documents and decisions governing the United States, at both the state and national level" bit because it doesn't add much. It's also unnecessary to discuss the Barbary Coast situation twice in the same paragraph. And you probably don't need the quote ""architect, horticulturalist, mathematician, cryptographer, surveyor, paleontologist, author, lawyer, inventor and violinist", for several reasons, including the fact that he's already described as an author and lawyer. You may also want to review our article on writing technique called show, don't tell. Of course, I'm leaving these decisions in your hands, but the lead should be tightened to remove redundancy, enhance relevancy, and to eliminate unnecessary adverbs and adjectives. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Hoppyh (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Brief note

Feel free to archive this. I'm just letting you know that I've marked the images, infobox, and lead sections as resolved. If you disagree, let me know. If you agree, do nothing. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, great job on the lead. When this review is over, you've got a barnstar coming your way. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Progress at TJ

Hi, I appreciate your editing style very much, and your attempt to rally the troops, so to speak. I disagree, though, that we need to determine what the average reader wants, since that's impossible to know. What we need to do is edit and discuss according to policy. Except for purposefully participating in your request for New Year greetings, I'm avoiding that talk page because I'm seriously disgusted with Gwillhickers. He owes CMguy777 an apology for being rude and disingenuous ( Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2015). He owes me an apology for his comments of 21:33, 29 December 2015. He owes all of us an apology for refusing to understand summary style. YoPienso (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yopienso:My reference to the average reader is really a reference to WP's specific statistics about proper length. It's a poor desperate attempt I suppose to get a change of focus to selfless editing from selfish, stated in terms of people. We are kindred spirits with respect to GW...I had the same type of problem when we were getting Lincoln to GA. There was no compromise with him, just endless filibustering. Hang in there. Hoppyh (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet tried to get him banned 2 years ago; I don't know why that was denied. I didn't have the patience to go to mediation over Grant. I don't have the patience to continue at TJ.

I gather from the cross and Bible reference you are a Christian; I am, too. I try to remember my attitude represents Christ, but I'm not sure it has been lately. Christ was harsh with the Pharisees and money-changers, so we don't always have to be positive and affirming, but when I feel I'm owed an apology, that's not Christ-like. It's time for me to take a break. God bless, YoPienso (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I am a Catholic but not exactly orthodox - my mentor is Fr. Richard Rohr. I'm also a friend of Bill W. (26 yrs) - talk about miracles. I really need to step away from Jefferson as well. Rohr says a Christ like life is one balanced between "retreats" and "confronts", so I think you're on the mark.Hoppyh (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Source reviews

Hi there Hoppyh,

I saw your source review request for your FAC on George Tucker. I'll be happy to help; would you care to do the same for the FAC Briarcliff Manor Public Library? Thank you! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. I would be happy to if I were qualified to do so, but I truly am not. I regret I can not reciprocate. I do feel competent to copy edit so if I can help you in that way let me know. Hoppyh (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty easy; you write references, right? All you'd typically do is look over that the references have all the important information, make sure the links work, and open them to check if they're reliable sources. That's pretty much all that's involved. No real qualifications needed. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 13:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to pass but thanks for your offer and best of luck with your nom. Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

RfA Nom

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hoppyh

I have started a self-nom for RfA and am unable to complete the final step to activate it-link is directly above on this page. Hoppyh (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done TheDragonFire (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Closure of your RfA self-nom

Hello. I'm sorry but I've had to close your RfA self nom per WP:NOTNOW. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates before applying again. Feel free to ask me for any further clarification. Warmly, L0URDES 08:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I am grateful for your time on this. I did spend about an hour reading the Advice article and related pieces, and against better judgement, forged ahead. Overall the feedback was much kinder than expected or deserved. Bottom line—as advised, I really don’t require admin tools for the best work I do. Thanks again, Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Saw your RFA... and wanted to say I sense in you EXACTLY what is needed as an admin- someone who is earnest, active, cares about the project and wants to serve. Some ideas that come to mind is participating in some AFD's; reading some at WP:ANI to get a feel for more behind the scenes issues that admins deal with and also to find an admin or two who you resonate with, keep an eye on their contribute list to see the kinds of things they do and ask questions.

Wiki needs good admins, and I (and I think some others who looked over your request for adminship) can see that for you, down the road. If you respond, please ping me here on respond on my talk page. warmly. TantraYum (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. See my remarks in reply above. I will retain your suggestion and try to revisit this. In the interim, I have no qualms about the the value I can continue to add to our platform. Cheers! Hoppyh (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Larry Stimpert

Hello. Could you please take a picture of President Larry Stimpert and upload it on Wikimedia Commons?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks...I will see if I can get one from the college. Hoppyh (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It has to be copyright-free. So I recommend taking it yourself or asking a friend to do it with their own camera...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I made my request with the college Webmaster. I’m not on the campus, so I’ll let you know what I hear from them. Hoppyh (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please don't upload a picture whose copyright is owned by the college! That's why I recommend taking a new picture. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Stimpert pic uploaded to commons and 4/20/18 e-mail sent per Commons:OTRS; approval pending. I have a copy of e-mail if needed. see File:Dr. Larry Stimpert.jpg Hoppyh (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Great! Could you please add it to his infobox once it's been approved?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Template:User URichmond has been accepted

Template:User URichmond, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Winchester Virginia Seal.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A clarification, please

The article talks of Theodore Roosevelt's contributions to the National Parks and Forests. However, the National Park system only came into being in 1916. Teddy was President until 1909. So what was he contributing to?

Vidyaan (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Short version: the number of parks doubled during his presidency, he created national monuments under a bill passed with his support, he supported what would become the legislation creating the park system, and had appointed many of the officials who made it real. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hampden–Sydney College

Thank you for the picture. I wonder if you could replace the self-published sources with reliable third-party sources please? For example the "Western Culture program" section is self-published.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I wish I could promise that but I’m afraid I’m up to my eyeballs at this point. Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A word

Just want to say thanks for your continuing contributions and improvements on the Washington page, and above all being a neutral and sobering influence on the Talk page. After all my appeals to how reliable sources treat their biographies were ignored, and then when it was suggested that we remove the Religion section entirely, I almost threw in the towel myself. I would rather ignore this calamity altogether, but when constant and radical major changes are proposed one after the other it becomes almost impossible. Don't expect you to take sides, but it has been very difficult trying to reason with our friend, imo. In any case, your presence at this point seems to be the only influence keeping the Talk page from bursting into flames, and on that note, am hoping you stay with us. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers: My apology for the delayed reply. I do understand the predicament that the two of you are in—the point being that both of you are in this. I remember well you and I being at loggerheads at TJ, so I know this can happen to the best(?) of editors. I think the WP solution is compromise, which will take both of you. The only way I see this happening is with a very deliberate decision by both to put the article (apart from your respective preferences) first. The beauty of the platform is its ability to accommodate any and all attempts at compromise, while preserving the status quo ante. It’s just a matter of the two of you availing yourselves of the platform’s pliancy. You can always take that step toward the other and and retain the ability to return to where you are now. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, as they say. I beg your tolerance, as I know I’m preaching to the choir. Hang in their pal. Hoppyh (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Adams

John Adams has been nominated for FAC (by another user), but it may benefit from a copy-edit from a renewed set of eyes, if you are still interested - it is quite long. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hoppyh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Word of caution

We might want to be careful about making comments like "I hope Wehwalt returns" on the nomination page, as it might be interpreted as a form of canvasing and could also be seen as a request for preferential treatment. There's no doubt with me that your intentions are honest, but you might want to consider removing the phrase expressing hopes for a specific reviewer. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Bunk. I have indeed seen evidence of this taking place but not on my part. See talk pp. entries dated 11/16/18. Hoppyh (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to find what you're referring to, but if I remember correctly I too had asked Wehwalt if he was still interested in reviewing the nomination, on the GW Talk page. Anyway, I thought it was best not to make calls for specific reviews on the nomination page. Didn't mean to get up on a pedestal. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not taking it as canvassing. See my comment on nom page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Gracias

	We're all in this together
	Thanks for all your hard work on the GW article - let's keep at it. It's a long slog but we'll make it to an FA...just might take a while. Like a marathon takes a while. Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Saw your post - I understand, if you feel you must you must but please don't leave. You've put so much work into the article I hate to see you go. Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)