User talk:Sarnold17/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Sarnold17, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! IainUK talk 22:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

I replied to your request for feedback. If you have any questions, please send me a message. Thank you! Chevymontecarlo - alt 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

--OpenFuture (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New Job

Nice work on the Arnold articles with the great content and references, which I'm sure will be of much help to future researchers. I'm always glad to see more Rhode Island history coverage on wikipedia.

I haven't dealt with portals very much, but as far as I know, you can freely edit and add wikilinks (to your articles) on the portals as well as on the lists. See: Wikipedia:Portal. If you have a question, you can post a question on a specific wikiproject's talk page and normally someone will help you, especially if it is a very popular wikiproject (such Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places). Feel free to contact me again if you have any other questions, sorry if I couldn't be of more help on this one. Swampyank (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sarnold17. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_October_7#Stukeley_Westcott.
Message added SPhilbrickT 23:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feedback on Stukeley Westcott article

Thanks to Chzzz and Sphilbrick for the feedback. I may have inapporpriately responded to Chzzz on his user page (sorry); I still get lost when trying to figure out where I'm supposed to answer the mail. I GREATLY appreciate the feedback and will plan to make fixes. I figured that there were several groups of Indians involved in King Philip's War, but forgot to look it up before going public.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Chzz on his talk page was quite alright. Don't feel bad about getting lost when trying to figure out where to respond, it is quite confusing (there's a planned feature to make it cleaner, but I've been hearing about the plan for years, so I'm not holding my breath.)--SPhilbrickT 11:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no bother at all.

I've replied now - User talk:Chzz#Stukeley Westcott article feedback. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

...and I've now added some info about William_Arnold_(settler).  Chzz  ►  11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More on Stukeley Westcott

I trust you are aware of the 1886 book by Hon. Jonathan Russell Bullock about Stukeley Westcott, however, I didn't see it in the bibliography, so perhaps you don't have a copy handy.

I'm well aware of this book because Roscoe Whitman cites Bullock extensively as a source. I have not personally seen the book however.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact spelling; I've seen:

• The life and times of Stuckley Westcott (in the Arnold Memorial, and in the Rhode Island Historical Society records)
• Incidents in the Life and Times of Stukely Westcott
• Incidents in the life and times of Stukeley Westcote

I even tracked down an ISBN 9781153244381, but this appears to be an OCR reprint, and I can't find the actual text.

See here for some info.--SPhilbrickT 13:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a cite to support the unsigned will claim, mainly so readers could go to something they can see online. I note you are using the SFN template for footnotes. I haven't used that before, and haven't quite mastered the hang of it, particularly when referencing a work with no proper last name. I don't like the look of the Notes section now, as the one I added looks out of place. Perhaps you can see how to make it work. I tried adding a cite Book to the bibliography, but I didn't see how to get the footnote to link to it, as you have with others. I may yet figure it out, but if I don't feel free to improve the appearance.--SPhilbrickT 16:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided is virtually identical to the source in my bibliography authored by Fred A. Arnold. I tried incorporating your website into that reference, but then I was mixing apples and oranges. I didn't want to change my original reference because then I'd have to track down all the footnotes related to that reference. Therefore, I've created a new reference for Fred Arnold's article that appears in the RI Hist Coll., and this new reference contains the url that you provided. There is an error in this new reference that I cannot fix. The year 1918 appears as the date, but the date of the journal article is July 1921. Even with year=1921 typed into the citation, the year 1918 still appears. Gremlins?Sarnold17 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just realized that I already had a link to another version of this article under "External Links."Sarnold17 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on Hendrick Jacobs Falkenberg

I made a few grammatical changes to the page. It seems to be written well, and has much material, but some of the grammar is rather odd and can use improvement. I am also curious as to whether you wrote the material strictly for Wikipedia, doing the large amount of research that must have occured, or if much of the material might be published elsewhere; even one's own work needs to be cited for it to be used in Wikipedia, I think. Otherwise, congradulations on such a thorough page (it might even be too thorough). Layona1 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback. The article was researched about 15 years ago with the hopes that it would eventually be published. Then stuff happened, and the motivation for continuing was lost. After writing a few other wiki articles, I thought this would be an opportunity to get my research out into the public domain. This research had significant input from Dr. Peter S. Craig, the foremost authority on Swedish families of the Delaware River, but he passed away last year.Sarnold17 (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Message from my userpage

Hi,

I replied further to your message a few days ago, on my talk page, but as it is now archived I thought it best to copy it here...  Chzz  ►  14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Stukeley Westcott article feedback

Hey, thanks for the great feedback on the Stukeley Westcott article. I can fix a lot of what you mentioned. The picture of the Providence settlement was enlarged because the caption reads "to the left of the letter C in the word Providence." If you can't even see the word "Providence" then the caption is meaningless. I enlarged the image to at least give the reader an idea of where Westcott's property was located without having to click on the image for a full enlargement. Is this reasonable, or should I just leave the image tiny and let the reader click on it?

What is ALT text, re the images?

I don't think that this article is near good status yet, but would you take a look at "William Arnold (settler)"? That article has a lot of stuff, and is meant to debunk a lot of garbage that's floating around both printed sources and the internet.

Great to get your feedback.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Refs: Stukeley Westcott  · Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/2010 October 7#Stukeley_Westcott  · William Arnold (settler)

• Firstly, it'd be good to crop all that useless whitespace from the image. And then, it might be worth making a 'blow-up' of that small portion, to show the detail, so that we wouldn't need to use a forced page-size, and it'd be clear even in thumbnail. We could even circle it or something.

I would definitely go for this, but it sounds a bit like work right now. I'm just taking my first baby steps into dealing with images; I don't do photoshop and all that great stuff, so anything like cropping pics is something I will have to grow into.

The oldest Flag of Denmark.

• The main use of ALT text is for people using a screen-reader, so mostly people with sight difficulties (visual impairment). It is an alternative description of a picture. An example,

[[File:Dannebrog.jpg |thumb|alt=A red flag divided into four by a white cross. |The oldest [[Flag of Denmark]].]]

So, readers who are unable to see the image will, instead, see the text "A red flag divided into four by a white cross.".

I emphazise the word 'instead' because, actually, some versions of Internet Explorer show the alt text as well, as pop-up text...but that is incorrect, really. The whole point is, when someone cannot display images, the text version appears in place of the picture. It's good for limited devices (e.g. some mobile phones, or text browsers) too.

It's a nice thing to add; over the past year or so, there's been increasing enthusiasm for adding alt text to as many images as possible, especially on higher-quality articles.

It is one of the things mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility). Along with the 'standard' thumbnail size, it is one of the things that helps Wikipedia pages to work on a wider range of platforms.

Ok, if this is the wave of the future, I'm OK with that. Would you care to do one of my photos in this way so that I can see how it's done without having to read the manual? Will it change the appearance of the article?

I'll try to have a look at William Arnold as soon as I can. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback!!Sarnold17 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

William_Arnold_(settler)

Review collapsed here

I made a few minor fixes myself. Thanks very much. Here are responses to your individual comments: I don't think that the 'education' in the infobox is appropriate; it sounds like OR, and I doubt 'education' really applies Actually, in the case of William Arnold, I think the education bit is important, because first, such education was rare among American settlers born in the 16th century, particularly for those not going to a university, setting Arnold apart from his peers; and secondly because he used his education to write letters to the leaders of the colonies. This was a significant part of what made him notable among American settlers. It is not OR, by the way; "Education: suffieient to write letters to..." is almost a quote from Anderson, et al. If appropriate, I'd be glad to footnote it. OK, but it looks a bit odd in the infobox. Probably because normally there we'd expect something like "Oxford University" or whatever. It's kinda trying to cram information in where it doesn't belong. I suppose, if anything, it would go in "| known_for". It just seems out of place, in the infobox, which really is a standardized way of presenting specific and repeatable key facts; in many cases, lots of fields simply do not apply, and personally I don't think 'education' applies to someone from this era, because I think it is designed to hold the name of the establishment at which they studued, not a run-down of their specific level of education. Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*Check the format of dates, because in e.g. 1553–1596, some have an – some an &mdash, and spaces, etc. See WP:MOSDASH. OK, this is a good point, and one of those mystifying things to someone who grew up with a manual typewriter. I'll see what I can figure out, and make appropriate changes. Have fun. The MOS will drive you crazy if you let it; the main thing is just to keep it consistent.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I've gone through most of the dual dates (e.g. 1571/2) and written them in current form, and then footnoted them with notes of explanation at the end of the article.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)  Done*I don't think the lede covers a summary of the whole article well; there is probably a bit too much on the lineage business, and it seems to skip over the voyage, the Gortonites, his death, etc. I've rewritten the entire lead, and it reflects the reorganization of the entire article, moving the bit on ancestry to the end of the article. I've added more material in the lead.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Hmmm. I thought I hit all the bases in the introduction. Concerning the lineage business: I see two reasons why this is important: (1) William Arnold is not a particularly notable historic figure. People probably aren't going to click on his page unless they are either interested in the early colonial history of Rhode Island, OR they happen to be a descendant. I may be off base on this assessment, but I truly believe there are a lot more William Arnold descendants, interested in reading this article than there are affecionados of early RI colonial history; therefore, there should probably be more of a genealogical slant to the article, and besides, that's my area of expertise anyway, so that's which way I'm going to slant, unless others intervene and set me straight. And (2) the lineage business centers around my entire purpose for re-doing this article. Last August when I looked at the then-existing article on William Arnold, my first reaction was "holy crap, what a bunch of garbage." This original piece was done according to wiki standards, citing sources and everything. Trouble is, the WRONG sources were cited--sources that reiterated all the lies and myths that have grown up around this family. My entire purpose for re-writing the article was to play Snopes.com, and try to totally debunk all the many many many mis-representations concerning this family. In fact, I thought I would add another section to the article entitled "Lies, myths, and misrepresentations concerning the Arnold family" and systematically, one by one, take every single falsehood concerning this particular family, and present the known truth, with a source. So, from this standpoint, the lineage stuff is important; without it, the same old lies will continue to be perpetuated and perpetuated--something that we genealogists deal with on a daily basis. I understand, and I guessed that was pretty much what had happened. Of course, we do need to make things clear and debunk any myth - but there is no need to overstate the issue. Regarding the whole article, there is the problem of balance and caution regarding undue weight; in the context of the subject of the article, yes his lineage is important, but it's a bit much to dedicate such a large chunk of the article to that when there is only a short paragraph about his voyages. Re. "lies, myths" etc - question is, are the "myths" themselves actually 'notable'? Are there reliable sources talking about the myths? Don't get carried away trying to debunk invalid information; take the higher ground, and just leave it out completely - or add a brief footnote where necessary. If some 'reliable source' says one day but newer ones say another (for example), that's fine, you can mention that. But there is no need to make too much of it. Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*There is no need to say 'England' in the picture captions e.g. Church of St. Mary Major, Ilchester, England - in fact, there is probably no need to even say 'Ilchester', given the context; captions should be brief (GA criteria). I think I've now taken care of thisSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, I'm a little mystified by this. Aren't there a lot of people who look at an article, and go straight to the pictures and captions, and then as time allows take a look at the text? Don't the pics and captions give the best 60-second gist of an article? William Arnold was primarily an American figure, and the article is written much more to an American audience--that's what most of his descendants are. Therefore, is it not appropriate to say, hey, he was born in another country? My personal take is that I like captions, because I can get a great sense of what's going on without reading the article. After all, isn't that what an infobox is for? Another great 60-second synopsis. Captions should be succinct; more information about the image can be included on its description page, or in the main text MOS:CAPTIONS. Facts belong in the prose, not in lengthy captions. Also, consider - it does not say "Rhode Island, USA" everywhere - it just says "Rhode Island".  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*the will of his father, Nicholas Arnold, dated 18 Jan 1622/23. - don't abbreviate 'Jan' unless it is a quote (in quotation marks) I think I have fixed theseSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Good point. I've been doing genealogy for four decades, and three-letter abreviations for the months are standard. It is difficult, but not impossible, to teach an old dog new tricks. I've been trying to wikify my dates as I write, but I forget sometimes, or maybe even often-times. I'll play bot and try to do a cleanup. Dates are always an issue, at GAR or FAR; it's worth checking through every date, to make sure the format is consistent - refs included (although there is one exception there; in refs, for website access date a shorter form is usually acceptable). For the rest though, again, consistency is the key; whether it be "1st of January, 1901" or "1 January 1901" or "January 1" or whatever - as long as it is internally consistent.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*William married about 1610 Christian Peak who was baptized 15 Feb 1583[/84] - more abbreviation problems; this does not make sense as a sentence. Maybe Around 1610, William married Christian Peak who was baptized on the 15th of February 1583 - I'm not sure about this [/84] thing; why is there a reason for the doubt? It seems odd to know the day but be uncertain about the year. Maybe it needs a footnote. Same with his own date of death. I've attempted to smooth out all the dates, putting them into a more consisten, readable formSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) OK, I'll try to work on smoothing out the dates. Now, concerning the 83/84. No, there is absolutely no uncertainty concerning this date. It was an actual unique date in history. However, several centuries ago nations began switching over from the old Julian calendar to the more modern and accurate Gregorian calendar. In the old calendar, New Years Day occured in MARCH, not on Jauary 1st. Therefore, the months of January, February and PART of March occured at the END of the year, not at the beginning. In 1583, the month of February was at the END of the year, but today February is at the BEGINNING of the year. Therefore, when we reckon old dates during those months, it is CORRECT to include the original year (e.g. February 1583), but also include the current interpretation of the date which would be February 1584. Therefore, the correct way to write a date before 1741 (I think that's the year the American colonies accepted the Gregorian calendar) would be to include BOTH years if the month was January, February, or March. I don't know all the details, so when I run into such a date, I just spit it out verbatim from the source. Interesting. I knew about the calendar switch, but I was thinking it was a one time thing. It didn't occur to me until you mentioned it that they might use a practice of multiple years for the overlap months for some time. That explains something that perplexed me (and I might have even mentioned it to you on another article). I recently started reading some of the official documents of the Colony of Connecticut, and I was surprised to see the "old" year carried over into January. I mentioned that it reminded me of the problems people have with paper checkbooks, but I wouldn't expect to see it with such formal documents. This is a much more satisfying answer. I'll have to go back and reread, and see if it is now clearer.--SPhilbrickT 01:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, Caesar, yeah; well, OK. We need to work out which they were using, and within the document, stick to a consistent format. Footnote to elaborate if necessary.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*Born in Ilchester, Somerset, England ...and then ...daughter of Thomas Peak of Muchelney, Somerset, England - I think you can skip 'England' in all subsequent mentions; I'd just leave the first one (in this section). OK, that sounds reasonable. I'm a high school teacher, and I'll get my students' take on this. OK - but remember to avoid systemic bias. If you insist on "England" for each, I will insist on "New York, USA" etc.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*Interestingly, both of these documents - remove 'interestingly' - not neutral; let the reader decide what is and is not interesting. OK, why don't I change the word "interestingly" to the short phrase "of note is that"? It is noteworthy that a fantastically terrific and wonderful article appeared right next to an article filled with yesteryear's equivalent of a computer virus. More adjectives please :-) (See also: WP:PEACOCK)  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*The impact of both of these documents has no parallel in the realm of New England genealocial research. - according to who? poor language has been removedSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I thought I would take some flack on this one. OK, not very objective. I'll have to find something a little more justifiable. Did you ever watch Columbo? He often said, "Just the facts, Ma'am".  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*The picture of "Church of St. Mary Major" is in an awkward spot, breaking up a heading. It's probably best moved to the right and up one paragraph, so that it naturally finishes within the section. there should no longer be any objection to its placementSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) as I've perused some featured articles, I really liked the balance created by some pics on the left and some pics on the right. The appearance of the article is important to me. I don't like busting through section lines, but I also don't like having all the images on the right. I put the image on the left so that the article isn't too lopsided. Is it OK to have most of the images on the right. Should most of the images be on the right? I was just trying to create a certain aesthetic, but I can play with this some more. It is mostly about making it easy on the eye to follow the text. That's why left images are not permitted at the beginning of sections. Because of that, and because many sections will only have one image, results in most images being on the right. It's OK to use left-aligned images in a section, yes, and it can help. Just avoid section boundaries. Also, never 'sandwich' text between two images.  Done*"were the early records brought... - I assume this is a direct quotation? Therefore, it needs a reference immediately after it. I've rewritten this entire sectionSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I'm writing this without looking at the article, so I'm not sure what the difficulty is. The family record was created in England and ended up in the USA. Do we need a source saying it was brought? Or maybe I'm mis-reading your comment. Point is, if something is a direct quotation, it must have a reference immediately after it. That part is in quotation marks, so I suspect it is a direct quote, hence needs a reference. It's in the middle of the last para of "The Arnold family record", where it says, ...publication of the family document: "were the early records brought from England by William Arnold valid?"  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*Short answer / The long answer, on the other hand is not Encyclopaedic language poor language removedSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) yeah, that's language to make it readable, but I can see it's not very en...ic. I'll work on this one.  Done*...publishing it in his otherwise excellent Genealogical Dictionary - 'otherwise excellent' is a bit POV POV removedSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Hmmm. This work is hailed in genealogical circles as an excellent work, and I can almost quote "otherwise excellent." The "otherwise" is my word that acknowledges the fact that people knowledgeable about RI genealogy realize that Austin's acceptance of someone else's work without verification was a big faux-pas. My intent was to show the evil done to one of our purest of saints by the dastardly villain of mis-information. I'll have to look up POV when I'm done writing all these comments. Yes, but in doing so you are introducing your own opinion. Now, if other people have written that it was a faux-pas, we can say so. Otherwise, we cannot, that'd be original research.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*many William Arnold descendants today (2010) still find this fictitious ancestry from various sources and believe it to be true. - a) don't use the word 'today' - it's better if this can be written in a 'timeless' way, so maybe just 'Even in the 21st century' or something. b) Is this a verifiable fact? There is no reference. Is it OR? poor language removedSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I didn't quite know how to deal with this. It is a verifiable fact, but it takes many sources to verify. Basically, what I'm saying is that when I go surfing the net and look up references for William Arnold, I find people's personal ancestry charts that STILL include the faulty information published over 130 years ago, even though it was corrected 95 years ago. So, yes, it is factual and verifiable, and I could actually cite various websites to demonstrate this. Should I do this with two or three websites? Even though the website may change (and SHOULD change), a retrieval date should keep the source valid. Again, the PURPOSE for my even writing the article was to begin the process of clearing out the misinformation. Any ideas on your part (or anyone else's) are greatly appreciated. Only if the websites are reliable sources (in the sense of a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking", I mean) - not if they are just blogs or personal websites. If someone has used wrong info on their own website, that's not noteworthy. And again beware original research. Has anyone previously (in reliable sources) made mention of this? I mean...if there is a New York Times piece that talks about people using the invalid data, then yes; if not, we can't "make a story" of it. Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)  Done*Unfortunately, in this age of the internet, one can find websites that show attractive lineages of Nicholas Arnold back many generations, often incorporating some of Somerby's discredited work. However, not a shred of evidence has as yet been made public illuminating us to the ancestry of Nicholas Arnold. - does not sound Encyclopaedic; appears to be OR language removedSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) yeah, you're right; I'm writing for an audience, but it doesn't sound encyclopaedic. I can and should re-write this. Yes, this is OR; it stems from my own web-surfing. I'll have to work on this.  Done*To be honest, the stuff about the erroneous lineage sounds somewhat snippy and accusatory; I know you want to state the facts clearly, but I think it can be done with more tact; such as "Previously it was believed X, but new evidence has proved this to be incorrect." or whatever. But not things like "not a shred of evidence" (colloquial, not encyclopaedic tone) and italicising the only known ancestors - it gives somewhat undue emphasis. I've attempted to remove the objectionable materialSarnold17 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Well, the stuff about the erroneous lineage was MEANT to be accusatory. It was blatant mis-information, and it was no accident. The perpetrator had a track record of dishonesty, and I gave an example of that. I tried to take a bit of the edge of the blame away from Mr. Somerby by suggesting that his client may have helped prompt his actions, but the bottom line is that this guy was a phony, he was a swindler, and was able to fund nice trips to Europe from wealthy clients who thought they were getting a good product for their money, but instead they got something that sounded too good to be true (and was). I can fix the colloquialsims (e.g. "shred of evidence"), but I'll have to work on the tact part. I need to reveal this phony for what he was, but I'll have to do it with tact and aplomb. Yes, that will take some effort. See WP:TIGER. (Note, of all the advice I've given here, reading that essay is the best bit)  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I think the article is beginning to focus far too much on the error in the historical records which, really, is a side-note in documenting the life of the person. Again, my purpose for writing the article was not as much to highlight the life of William Arnold as to try to dispell the misinformation that's floating around in cyberspace. I understand and appreciate your point, and I should probably start making some adjustments that will footnote some of the lineage difficulties and highlight the person himself. Good point.  Done*their voyage to the New World - maybe Wikilink New World ? I did wikilink "New World" elsewhere in the article. How many times should one wikilink the same word/phrase? Maybe a few times in different locations? I don't have a good sense for this yet. Only once within a section, but you can repeat a link used in other sections; the main point is, if it helps the reader understand. Also if it is linked a long way away, repetition can be useful. In that specific case, it's about 10 para's back or so.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) OK - I'll stop here... I hope that gives some thoughts. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  11:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Wow, what great feedback! You really spent some time writing all of this, and I am very pleased. I'm working on a couple other articles so won't start tomorrow, but I have internalized much of what you have said, and will come back periodically to look at your input to make appropriate adjustments. Your time and effort is very much appreciated.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) The amazing thing is, Chzz claims to be on a break. I can't imagine what he is like when not on a break (oh wait, yes I can, he totally reorganized the Feedback section and made it work much more smoothly.)--SPhilbrickT 01:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Heh; I'm marked as 'on a break' because soonish (next few weeks) I will probably be off Wiki completely for some weeks/months, so I'm avoiding getting too involved in ongoing issues. and yes, feedback is 'better', but it's still desperately backlogged. Then again, so is WP:AFC, and...well...most of the project Some links you might find useful are User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet and User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. I also suggest following some WP:FAR discussions; that gives a good insight into stylistic points. It can also drive you crazy, but still. At the risk of conceit, you might find a bit of a read of comments I've made on a couple of previous GARs to be of interest; Talk:Nicol David/GA1  · Talk:First-person shooter/GA1 - just for the types of issues that come up. Above all, I hope you take criticism well; the process of writing good articles can often be hard. Sometimes it's best to leave a particular article for a while and come back to it, even to do something entirely different such as WP:AFD !voting or helping settle a dispute or something.  Chzz  ►  02:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Hey, I've been checking out some of these links you provided--good stuff, and now I can see a source for several of your editing comments. Quick question--how do you handle "circa," e.g "died circa 1676" ? Is "ca" OK? One of the guides says avoid the word "circa." Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Chzz

You have pointed me in the direction of a boatload of resources. My hope is to print out many of them, and peruse them at my liesure, and then, little by little, begin applying the many suggestions. Ten weeks ago all I wanted to do was set the historical record straight about one of my ancestors, and now I'm working on my fifth article, and getting caught up in the quest to reach Nirvana. I see I have a long row to hoe.Sarnold17 (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry; it's an incremental process with no deadline.

• • To indicate around, approximately, or about, the unitalicised abbreviation c. is preferred over circa, approximately, or approx., and should be spaced (c. 1291). Do not use a question mark for this function (1291?), as this may imply to the reader an uncertainty on the part of Wikipedia editors rather than on the part of reliable historians. c. is preferred over ca.

-From WP:YEAR

One thing I didn't mention was WP:TMM - the 'missing manual'.  Chzz  ►  20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sarnold17. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2010_October_17#Hendrick_Jacobs_Falkenberg.
Message added SPhilbrickT 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some other resources you may find helpful

I urge you to take a look at:

• Peer review
• Good Article nomination (GAN)
• Featured Article candidates (FAC)

Roughly speaking, an article progresses in quality through five levels:

1. Stub
2. Start
3. C
4. B
5. GA
6. FA

(it is slightly more complicated than this because the distinction between stub and start is more a length than a quality issues, and stub is not simply a length issue, but treat this is a crude summary)

FAC is for the very best articles. while GAN is for the next tier. Assessment to move up to C or B are generally done by Wikiprojects.

I'm not very familiar with Peer review, but it appears to be the step to get ready for GA status (sort of a let me know before I formally submit) and possibly also for preparation for an FA nomination.

In contrast WP:FEED is oriented toward editors who may be decent writers (or not) but are new to the various requirements of Wikipedia.

To be blunt, and I trust you will take this as a compliment, you are too good for FEED. I enjoy reading what you are writing, but when I decide to visit FEED, I go with a particular mindset - I expect crap, I often get crap, and I triage whether there's something worth saving. To push the metaphor too far, I'm a MASH 4077 meatball doctor, just trying to patch things up until they can get to a real hospital. You need a top-notch plastic surgeon, not a meatball doctor. I'd like to think I can provide some help, but my approach to an article like you write has to be different than my approach to the typical requests at FEED.

Again, this is a compliment, and a hope you will work to get your articles into GA or FA shape, but the people who are best able to critique your editing hang out in different places.--SPhilbrickT 22:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments--they sound very complimentary to me. I requested feedback because the article is new, and I thought getting feedback was what I was supposed to do first. By the way, I did respond to your specific article comments on the feedback page where your comments were located. I'm still new at this entire wiki business, having done my first edit in August, but I've subsequently been working on several articles with great interest, so have learned a lot of the ropes in the past two or three months. Anyway, I'll be hunting around for editors for this article. I haven't gone to the New Jersey portal yet, but maybe I can find someone with some background on New Jersey colonial history. I greatly appreciate the generosity of your time with this article, as well as the Stukeley Westcott article.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, I wish more editors asked for feedback before going live. However, I just counted and there are 45 requests without a response, so I'm scrambling to find people who can help out. I won't ask you to do that yet, but I have been trying to go after editors a year after asking for help, so that may happen in the future.

I did see your responses- that is quite appreciated - it is amazing to me how often I give some feedback and never hear anything.

Check out WikiProject_New_Jersey It isn't specifically colonial history or even history, but my guess is that there will be a few editors interested in history hanging out there.--SPhilbrickT 01:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, again!Sarnold17 (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Somerset photo

Hi, I am slightly confused about the location. By Lemmington do you mean Limington which is c.5 miles from Yeovil? If so take a look at the relevant commons page. A great source for UK geography photos is Geograph - see photos for grid ref ST5422 (you can also navigate to surrounding grid squares). If none of those work for what you want I could probably go & take some - but if you want spring that will be a few months away here.— Rod ^talk 15:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the location is Limington. The photos are nice, but don't quite match the picture in my mind. I'm looking for something like rolling meadows, or some more panoramic view of the countryside, something that would show "my Limington Farm." I'll search the sources you described.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bill Arnie

 Chzz  ►  16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a few responses. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed all the  Done things, and I'm sure it is getting close to GA level. I suggest you list it for a GA review. Good luck,  Chzz  ►  09:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I archived the review; User_talk:Chzz/Archive_28#William Arnold (settler).  Chzz  ►  17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Warren Fales Draper (M.D.)

Hi, Sarnold17. For the moment, I have declined the speedy deletion which you requested on Warren Fales Draper (M.D.). Was the speedy tag there a mistake? Perhaps you meant instead to tag the redirect page in your user space? Let me know -- I don't want to delete such a large amount of work without good reason. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought -- you accidentally placed the speedy deletion tag on your main article instead of the subpage. (Because the subpage is a redirect, you probably didn't notice that it had redirected you to the main page when you added the tag.) Go ahead and add the WP:G7 user request to your User:Sarnold17/Warren Fales Draper (M.D.) redirect page and it will be deleted. Cheers. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Draper.WF.WWI.2.tif

Thank you for uploading File:Draper.WF.WWI.2.tif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. 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 or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

GA for William Arnold

I've reviewed your article on William Arnold and I passed it. Congratulations. You can read my review here. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 03:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 16:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Warren Fales Draper and dates

Sorry, Sarnold, I didn't know about the forthcoming article on great-uncle Warren. But, judging from what I see so far, we are probably in good shape. Uncle doesn't get a cast-iron claim on the unqualified article title just because he walked on this planet first. In WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term". According to this, I think the nephew could easily be considered the one most readers will be searching for. If so, Uncle can get the title "Warren Fales Draper (publisher)", and and you can put a hatnote in the nephew's article so that the uncle can be found. If you really don't think the nephew will be searched more often than the uncle, then you can request an admin to move the nephew back to the qualified name. Better yet, move it to "Warren Fales Draper (physician)" (per WP:PRECISION, "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary."). Then just edit "Warren Fales Draper", overwriting the redirect to create Uncle's article.

As for dates, WP:DATE says "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month." If Draper had spent most of his notable career in England or Australia, then a different decision could be made. Hope this helps.

Oh, boy, another guideline: WP:CREDENTIAL says that "Dr." and "Doctor" should be removed, and that "M.D." should be explained in the article text: "Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead."

Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Help needed on combined info boxes

Hello, Sarnold17. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sarnold17. You have new messages at Bazj's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Sarnold17. You have new messages at Avs5221's talk page.
Message added 11:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the message about the RI governors template. It's something I worked on quite a while ago as a good "cleanup" project. Please make any appropriate changes. Cheers! avs5221^(t|c) 11:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Explaining reversion

Hi, I reverted your good faith addition of the extra link to Thomas Dudley's ancestry. My thinking is that there is quite enough about Dudley's ancestry in the piece, some of which I added over the years. As you know, much of it on his father's side is open to speculation, and I think the piece adequately covers his mother's. That's just my thinking, though, and obviously if you disagree, you're welcome to take it up on the talk page. Just looking at some of your other work, I've enjoyed what you're up to. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I hate reverting contributions from good contributors without leaving a note of explanation on their talk page. I think you and I agree on the Dudley lineage questions. As you say, it's up in the air. Just speaking for myself, I find the lineage tags at the bottom distracting, unless it's something well fleshed-out and on the order of the Plantagenet kings or something. I think for American colonials, no matter how noteworthy, such things are overkill. That said, most of my contributions have been on American colonials, and along those lines, I enjoyed looking at your contributions. We seem to have a great deal in common, including ties to some of these early Puritan types. I didn't realize that the first Arnold spent a year in Hingham (Mass.), but I should have, given that I wrote most of the history of the HIngham wiki entry. In any case, thanks much for your message, and I hope we can work together in the future. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you mentioned the early Rhode Island governors. You've probably already seen this site [1], but I've found it helpful for some early Rhode Island portraits. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on template deletion

Hi, thanks for your message. I'm no expert in templates, but I see where the discussion is going on. Editor Student7 is not an administrator, but an active editor here, and from what I've seen, a fairly competent one. In this instance, I would just advise you to assume good faith. Leave a message on that editor's page, expressing your reservations about the proposed deletion, as well as pointing out any relevant details (like the ones you left on my talk page). In this instance, I'm certain that the two of you can come to an agreement, as you're both hard-working and conscientious editors here. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Best regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think you're right: a deep breath, a bit of time away and assuming good faith are just the prescription. Good luck with it, and let me know in the future if you need advice of any sort. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FEEDBACK

Dear sarnold, your info on the Arnolds is very thorough. Benedict and William Arnold deserve much more credit in the birth of RI than any historian gives them credit for. Benedict is the star of my discovery, seen at www.newporttowermuseum.com Check it out. Jim Egan, Newport R — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim egan (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John Coggeshall

Nice work on the John Coggeshall and other Rhode Island governors articles. Here's a link to the code to copy and paste for sourcing requests:Sourcing Articles You might be able to find some sources on Google Books. Swampyank (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Very nice work on creating the template showing full, complete and finite constitutional history of executive leadership for the territory, colony and state of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. One editor appears to be on a campaign to vandalize the article. You may be interested to review the recently deleted sections of the article. Also, may be a good idea to state your recommendation to keep your template. Your recent comment doesn't strongly show your preference. Thanks again for your hard work.

Thanks for your comment. My interests are in history, religion, philosophy and constitutional development. Concerning your decision to acquiesce on the idea of bifurcating the constitutional history of executive authority for the territory, colony and state of Rhode Island, it's worth remembering the constitutional continuity for the state is reflected by the fact that the 1663 Charter for the Colony was in full force until the mid-1800s, well after the colony became a state. Same is true for the body of judicial rulings for the state: that body of law transcends pre- and post- independence.

Ephemera

Hi, hope all is well on your end. I thought of you when I came across this and thought you might enjoy.[2] Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed, and that you can perhaps use it in one of your pieces. Let me know and I'll download the reverse side and link the two images. I don't know much about early Rhode Island history, but I always enjoy poking around in these digital archives and seeing what turns up. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead an uploaded the verso of that image just in case you wanted to use it. You'll see it on the bottom of the other image under 'other versions.' MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Popes - all the way back to Julius Caesar!

The Roman religion had a title for their leader, Pontifex Maximus. This started maybe 500 BC or so. Julius Caesar was one BTW. When the Christians replaced the Roman religion in the fourth century or so, the then-Caesar (Gratian) was asked who, then, was now Pontifex Maximus? He answered that it would have to be the bishop of Rome (now called "Pope" = Damasus). This was jubilantly carried forward as a title by subsequent bishops/Popes until they unofficially relinquished it around 1960s, I suppose. It was a bit of a pretense. They forgot to tell me when they did that!  :) Thus my creating a special template to pick up the sequence of Popes and a special one for Popes/bishops prior to 365 or whenever it was. All trashed when I (justly) lost the battle. I was quite annoyed at the time. Seems funny now! Student7 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Work on RI Colonial Governors

Hello again. I've now updated several of the articles on the earliest RI presidents, and wonder if you would take a look at them, since you seem to have an interest in this topic. The articles I've done so far are John Coggeshall, Jeremy Clarke (Governor), John Smith (Governor), and Nicholas Easton. I know you've done previous edits on a couple of these, so just want to collaborate. Thanks.Sarnold17 (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your question and comment above, great work on these articles. The improvement is tremendous. I would urge you, however, to take a look at the contemporaneous magistrates and governors in Massachusetts Bay during the 17th and early 18th centuries if you want to help develop the important content relating to the religious and constitutional explanations for why Rhode Island was established and developed in the first place. Baptists were treated as outcasts by many of the Puritans in Mass. Bay. Quakers and Baptists played a vital role in setting a standard for freedom of religion in Rhode Island that has been influential in American constitutional history. The relationship between the various governors, presidents and other administrators of the territory/chartered colony and the British monarch at particular periods (esp. Charles I, Charles II and the duo of William and Mary) is also relevant to improved understanding of the legal and political environment affecting the administrations of these individuals. Finally, as you've clearly shown through your careful documentation, several of the leaders of the territory and chartered Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations were not "governors", which is yet another reason for not breaking up the complete legal succession of executive governance of the territory, colony and state in the template box showing the administration of the legal territory. A lot of relevant individuals and other content was in the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article until the recent vandalism incidents which have for now been supported by an administrator. I personally will not be donating any more of my time to development of that article until that vandalism is reversed. Good luck with your good work.

Help with images

Hi, yes, it's fine to upload any and all images from the book in question that you mentioned. The book was published in 1908, and therefore is in the public domain, as it was published in the United States before 1923. I will take a look at the portraits, but if they're very old they're certainly in the public domain. I prefer uploading images to Commons, as that way the images are then available to everyone (if they're properly licensed). I have a bit of experience over there, so please do let me know if you need any help or advice. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, you're fine with downloading those two portraits of the governors. Anything that old is definitely in the public domain. I'm curious, though, on where the government website got them, as the reproduction isn't very good. I'd be tempted to see if you can track down where the originals are held, and see if they are uploaded to another website which might have better copies of the images. That's just me, though. I like images as sharp as I can get them. (If you can't find better copies, though, you may just have to make do.) As far as verifying the identity of the proper Coddington, that one's beyond me, as I know so little about Rhode Island history. I simply took Brown University's word for it, given the institution. But now that there's some question, I think your idea of contacting the two institutions to ask is the best course. I hope that works out. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do, or any questions that might arise. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

RI charter history

Hi! I have a question that you may be able to address. In working on Harry Vane the Younger, I've encountered mention of his influence in procuring the (1643, I believe) RI charter (he sat on the Commonwealth committee on plantations). What is less clear to me is the politicking in London around the RI charter and Coddington Commission, and the possible influence of Massachusetts agents in (a) trying to prevent issuance of the 1643 charter, or at least removing the religious freedom terms, and (b) the issuance and revocation of Coddington's commission. Do you have any insight on this, and/or sources that might shed some light?

Cheers! Magic♪piano 19:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! I just quoted Harry Vane in my article on Nicholas Easton (end of Colonial President section), but I think the timeframe may be 1651. Anyway, for starters I refer to Bicknell's history of RI (1920) a lot. Go to the following link and find pages 975-989 which talk all about Coddington, and a lot about his commission: Here. On page 1001 is the material I quoted from Harry Vane. Hopefully I can come up with some other stuff. I'm just beginning to get into Samuel G. Arnold's history of RI (1859).Sarnold17 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Samuel G. Arnold's history of RI (1859) has this short bit about Roger Williams' trip to England to get the 1644 charter and bring it home, but Vane is not mentioned. There is some discussion of the discordant nature of the RI towns, however, and the pulling out of Patuxent to fall under the authority of Massachusetts. The pages are 113-114, and the link is: Here. Maybe this will be of some help. I'm sure I'll come across more as I continue my research.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's another source about Williams bringing home the Patent of 1644: Here. This is from The Life and Times of Samuel Gorton (1908), and found beginning on page 58. I'm currently working on the Samuel Gorton article. It's a challenge, but very interesting.Sarnold17 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The last one is particularly useful -- thanks for the pointers! Most Massachusetts sources don't go into detail on the attempts to gain control over the RI territory, but the reference to Hugh Peter and Thomas Weld's mission to get for Massachusetts a patent for RI has yielded further sources. Here we have mention of Weld acquiring a patent, but not all of the needed seals, with Williams getting Vane to undo it and grant him a charter. If you have access to JSTOR, this article mentions the Massachusetts agents, and the fact that Vane acts as a patron to Coddington in 1652, and this one mentions Weld's forgery of the Narragansett patent. Magic♪piano 01:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gaspee affair

Sorry about that; I've fixed the redirect for you. For future reference, you can create redirects yourself by replacing the text of the page with

#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]

Find out more at WP:REDIRECT. Regards, Skomorokh 04:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1