User talk:Humphrey Tribble

Misleading Title

I don’t want to get into the what’s in/what’s out debate, but the existing title isn’t accurate. “The Americas” includes the USA but those killers are excluded from this page. Is there any objection to retitling it “List of Rampage Killers in the Americas (Other than the United States)”? Yes, the title could be qualified in many other ways, but United States killers represent about two thirds of those in “the Americas”. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Star

The British Library attributes composition of 'The Star' to Jane Taylor: it is unclear why you think there is no evidence for it. Do you have a RS that casts doubt on it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sharif" vs. "Sherif"

The "a" is correct as being the way most Arabic people translate the title into the Roman alphabet used for English, but for some unknown reason Lean's scripts appear to have used "sherif." I'd speculate that Lean wanted to avoid confusion between Ali's title and his actual name, but that's just a guess. Your edit to "sharif" seems to me to be both logical and correct. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Humphrey Tribble! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! BusterD (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some gadgets I use which should be available in your preferences like ProveIt and refToolbar. These tools might help making citation simpler for you. BusterD (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My User page

Did you tag my user page by accident? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a mistake. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Curious to know what article you tagged or were going to tag based on the edit summary you gave. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Humphrey Tribble! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Determining the grade assigned to an article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for George Washington's Genocides

I linked you multiple peer-reviewed journal articles by Jeffrey Ostler and Rhiannon Koehler discussing the subject. The books George Washington's War on Native America, The Indian World of George Washington: The First President, the First Americans, and the Birth of the Nation, and Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas also describe in detail the Sullivan Expedition and other potentially genocidal acts carried out by George Washington and his subordinates.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5309/willmaryquar.72.4.0587

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14623528.2016.1120460

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/amerindiquar.42.4.0427

https://www.google.com/books/edition/George_Washington_s_War_on_Native_Americ/r3BiMdTSj9UC?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Indian_World_of_George_Washington/YyJLDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Surviving_Genocide/6zeWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Wayne

Hi Editor, I invite you to partake in another discussion on Anthony Wayne's talk page. Similar to Tarleton it has been riddled with Cartoonish or one sided edits.Dcgene (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am too bogged down in other projects to contribute much, Dcgene (talk · contribs). You could try adding a section called myths. That is what I have in mind for Banastre Tarleton because if something is shown to be incorrect and deleted, another person might later think that a "fact" is missing. Addressing such things as part of the article keeps the documentation visible and avoids constant correction. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS if there is something on which you are seeking opinions, I'd be happy to read it. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it, there seems too be some sort of debate between editors there. Also one update holds more weight on how well written it is vs working through contradicting sources. If your time allows, I would be curious what your take is or any participation. Thanks! Dcgene (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey, don't bother--Dcgene is just a sock of the editor who's edit-warring on Anthony Wayne. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Patriots" in America

Sorry, this is offhand without reference to notes, I recall a reference to a civil war in the Netherlands in the 1500s? where the local Protestant gentry who had rebelled against the occupying Catholic Spanish Empire in a previous century had named themselves 'Patriots'.

Many of the early 1600s militia officers in frontier Virginia county militias were veterans of English regiments fighting on the Protestant 'Patriot' side against the Catholic Empire occupying them.

The volume I was reading at the time suggested the British colonial military strategy adopted against adjacent Native Americans of burning their villages and fields in a summer-fall campaign, was the same military strategy employed in mainland European religious wars on both sides.

The raiding soldier/serfs could then return to their own fields for the friendly populace harvests. The intended result was to displace a dependent refugee population onto the winter resources of the enemy's strongholds (or their allies to the rear), and so remove the nearest forward bases from which the enemy could launch a Spring offensive.

In the next century or so, an independent Dutch New Netherlands was incorporated into the British colony of New York . . . The English regiments in the Netherlands fighting their Spanish Crown were sort of like French contingents fighting with the American 'Patriots' against the British Crown, only different.

And, BONUS, the majority faction in the sitting Dutch Parliament were the “PATRIOT” party, with whom the Congress were negotiating a trade agreement, and accepting aid from the Dutch who had tried and failed to join the first “Alliance of Armed Neutrality” formed by the Russians to oppose British hegemony in the North Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Joan Ward-Harris

Hello, Humphrey Tribble. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joan Ward-Harris, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Joan Ward-Harris

Hello, Humphrey Tribble. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joan Ward-Harris".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banastre (1787 ship)

Hi Humphrey Tribble, We can identify three generations of Tarletons in the slave trade, Thomas, who begat John Tarleton (slave trader), who begat John Tarleton (MP), Thomas, Clayton, and Banastre Tarleton. Banastre was not a slave trader, but he was a strong supporter of the slave trade and slavery. His three brothers were slave traders. Daniel Backhouse apparently was in a partnership with John Tarleton (MP). That does not mean that the partnership owned any vessels. My understanding is that the they each owned shares in their own name in numerous vessels, often in conjunction with the other Tarleton brothers, or other investors. I do not know how the firm styled itself legally. What I have seen is references to their ownership. Lloyd's Register, in refering to the ownership by Tarleton, or Tarleton & Co., was being economical with space and was probably simply naming the managing owner. References to Tarleton and/& Backhouse may have signaled anything from their being the only owners, to their being, together the largest owners. Tarletons & Backhouse may have been nothing more than signaling that John (MP) and one or more of his brothers were shareholders in the vessel. Tarleton and Backhouse had ownership interests in 39 vessels between 1786 and 1804; half of the vessels were enslaving ships. The lack of an article in WP about the partnership says nothing about its significance or notability, but a lot about the nature of Wikipedia. There is a lot of source material, but putting it together would require an editor with interest, access to Liverpool archives, a historical bent, and n understanding of 18th-19th century partnerships. Hope this helps, Acad Ronin (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional information, Acad Ronin (talk · contribs), and for all your work on this article. I ran into a similar problem doing a little work on John Mercer and the production of cloth in Lancashire.

I am interested in the Tarleton family history, beginning with Banastre Tarleton and working back for more information about his forebears. My impression so far is that the Tarletons were firstly merchants. That led to the import/export trade in general, and finally to ownership of ships.

I admit my lack of knowledge about the slave trade. So I wonder at what point the Tarletons become slavers. The family certainly benefitted from the trade, and John Tarleton later inherited a plantation. But did they actually purchase people in Africa and sell them in America (hence, slave traders), or did they simply provide a means of carriage (i.e. shippers, of which one cargo happened to be slaves). Certainly, it makes no difference if you happen to be one of the cargo.

Banastre Tarleton is an interesting character. I’m trying to sort out fact from the myth of the American war of independence. I haven’t formed an opinion about his personal attitude toward slavery. (I haven’t read his speeches yet.) He never owned slaves and was instrumental in freeing many. It is correct that he opposed British abolitionists. However, was he simply representing his constituents (including his family) just as he might have opposed someone trying to end trading in spices?

I suppose my questioning arises from some of that Tarleton myth. Those writing about Banastre Tarleton are quick to label his father as a slave trader, when they could as easily call him a former mayor of Liverpool. I like to get things right.

In the interest of getting things right, I wondered about the usage of enslaved. I have little experience with the new language, but it seems grammatically incorrect to refer to enslaving ships. Ships don’t enslave anyone, they simply carry cargo. The term slave ships is generally understood and perhaps the term enslaving ships will also become familiar. However, would an alternative be to call them ships used in the slave trade? So we would regard them simply as trading ships until they were used to transport enslaved people.

Finally, is there any evidence that the ship Banastre was named for Banastre Tarleton and not for John Tarleton’s father-in-law Banastre Parker?

Humphrey Tribble (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lot to unpack. let me start with some of the last things first. I am moving to enslaving ships by analogy to whaling ships; I am trying to avoid too long circumlocutions. I still default to slave ships when going to something else is too cumbersome.

Banastre. I wondered about that myself. I found a cite in Thomas (1997), p.516. He states that the vessel was named for Banastre Tarleton. He might not be right, but I haven't fouon an alternate view.

You make an interesting point re Banastre and slavery. Look at Thomas (it is available on the Internet Archive); it mentions some of his statements. I get a sense of an unsentimental realist who has an aversion to idealists.

Slave trader versus mayor: I think John Tarleton is suffering from changing norms. Calling him a mayor can be seen as glossing over his sins. As for John, the evil that men do lives on after they die; the good is interred with their bones. There are many people who are sure that they are such good people that even if they lived in Liverpool in the 18th century, they would have been in the forefront of the abolition movement.

The earliest mention of the Tarletons and the slave trade I have found (and I haven't looked hard) shows Thomas Tarleton as a captain/owner of an enslaving ship in 1717.

As for the owners of vessels also buying and selling captives, that seems to have been the dominant practice. I have seen one mention where investors chartered the vessel for the first two legs of the triangular trade at a monthly rate for one voyage. They put up the trade goods and owned the captives. They also had a supercargo on board to do the actual trading. I wish I could remember which vessel it was that had this arrangement, but I don't off hand. If I can figure it out I will let you know. still, the few accounts that survive do not distinguish between vessel owner and cargo owner.

Let me encourage you to follow up on the Tarletons. WP is not good on the British slave traders. Most of the articles are thin. WP is written by white men in the 25-60 age range. That demographic has little interest in the slave trade, trade in general, or merchant ships. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Humphrey Tribble: I found the chartered enslaving vessel. She was Sandown. We know quite a bit about her one enslaving voyage because her master left a detailed journal. Unfortunately, we don't know why she made only the one such voyage. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Acad Ronin (talk · contribs)

The Sandown history is interesting. I noted in the Wikipedia article that more than a third of the crew died and many others deserted. So what must the conditions have been like for the captives?

I am reading about Banastre Tarleton’s parliamentary career.

The History of Parliament says: Most of his speeches in his first two sessions in the House assailed the ‘mistaken philanthropy’ of abolishing the slave trade, which Liverpool Members were instructed to oppose. ‘There’, said Tarleton to Wilberforce, pointing to some of his constituents in the gallery during a debate on the subject, ‘there are my masters.’ and later: Renewing his opposition to reduction of the slave trade, he ‘was sorry to observe that ministers were much more active in injuring the trade of the country than in providing for its defence’, 1 May. (In his view the United States would benefit most from abolition.)

On at least one other occasion he presented a petition by his constituents, on some subject, and defended it vigourously.

I am still reading, but I am forming the impression that whatever his personal opinions, he subordinated them to the interests of his constituents and the dictates of his party.

I also came across a hint that the Tarletons were not the owners of the ships they used, at least through most of their history. I will keep digging on Banastre Tarleton and note anything about the slave trade. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some work on death rates aboard ship. IIRC, there was not a strong correlation between crew death rates and those of the captives. Crew tended to die of tropical diseases contracted on the coast, especially yellow fever. Captives tended to die of dysentery. There is even evidence that the crowding of the captives didn't matter. The ship owners gave captains, doctors, and chief mates strong monetary incentives to keep the captives alive. Dolben's Act increased the incentives for captain and doctor, but Hugh Crow pointed out that the Act's incentives were trivial relative to the existing incentives. The incentives also acted to limit cruelty and maltreatment of captives. Other sources of deaths among captives were suicide, and only rarely uprisings. Even in the case of rebellions, captains tried to put them down with minimum loss of life, and hence of money. The slave trade was a lot more complex than the popular caricatures would lead you to believe. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that it was wrong, but it is consistent with Hannah Arendt's assessment of the Holocaust: the "banality of evil".

Ownership of vessels was usually in the form of 1/16ths, with even a major owner often not owning more than 1/4. Many owners tried to diversify their risks by owning a little bit of more vessels.

Interesting re Banastre.

Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on the Tarleton page which has greatly improved the language and biased sentiment. There are howvever still a few inaccuracies. Tarleton was a life-long Whig. He never stood for election as a Tory as is now shown.

Banastre Tarleton was the third of seven children born to merchant John Tarleton. This is incorrect. The family consists of four boys and one daughter. He was the second boy.

Tarleton sailed with Lord Cornwallis as part of an expedition to capture the southern city of Charleston, South Carolina...Incorrect the original destination was North Carolina to rendezvous with the Highland loyalists. Only after the fleet landed was Clinton informed of their defeat at Moore's Bridge and they moved on to Charleston.

In the course of the colonial war in North America, Cornet Tarleton's campaign service during 1776 earned him the position of brigade major at the end of the year; he was twenty-two years old.....This is inelegantly expressed and factually wrong. Tarleton was promoted on Harcourt's recommendation following the coup at Basking Ridge. His pervious service was limited.

On seeing that, the Loyalist cavalrymen believed that the Virginia Continentals had shot their commander – while they asked him for mercy..This line is controversial and poorly expressed. . In either event, on 7 October 1780, at the Battle of Kings Mountain, South Carolina, soldiers of the Continental Army, having heard of the slaughter at Waxhaw Creek, killed American Loyalists who had surrendered after a sniper killed their British commanding officer, Maj. Patrick Ferguson.[15]..This is irrelevant to the battle of Waxhaw's and highly debatable. The loyalists were hanged as a result of local politics, not the Waxhaw massacre.

Sniper is a modern term and should be removed.

Tarleton materially helped Cornwallis to win the Battle of Camden in August 1780....Not really. His success stemmed from the British Legions actions following the battle. (Led By George Hanger not Tarleton) A cornet of the 17th, Thomas Patterson, rode up to strike Washington but was shot and killed by Washington's orderly trumpeter..his is not correct. Patterson is killed a few days later while crossing the Broad River.

Washington survived this assault and in the process wounded Tarleton's right hand with a sabre blow, ...Not true.

Tarleton creased Washington's knee with a pistol shot that also wounded his horse. ..Not true.

Like Tarleton’s mark on the history of the war, the painting is larger than life...Emotive delete.

The portrait by the third artist, Richard Cosway, is on quite a different scale. During the late Georgian and Regency periods, Cosway became a sought-after miniaturist as well as receiving commissions for his full-sized portraits. He was the only artist ever appointed official painter to the Prince of Wales. Miniatures were the wallet photos of their era, meeting the need for images which could be transported easily, and it is for these which Cosway is most famous today...Irrelevant to the subject of Tarleton.

Some good quality engravings of Tarleton exist, having met the popular interest in him. Most commonly, they were based on the Reynolds painting. Others likely arise from the Gainsborough. Some are inaccurate, perhaps imagined by the engraver. A few were coloured to show him in a red uniform, presumably to meet the expectations of some readers...Irrelevant. Tarleton was known for speaking on military matters as well as opposing the abolition of the slave trade, a requirement for Liverpool MPs...Untrue. Gascoyne a contemporary Liverpool MP was a leading abolitionist. Suggest changing 'requirement' to 'expectation.' She was important to his parliamentary career, writing many of his speeches...Source?

The Source bibliography is way too long and features publications with little or no relevance to Tarleton.

O'Shaughnessy, Andrew..Bare mention of Tarleton.

Pancake, John S (1985)...as above.

Pearson, Kenneth..General book about the war not Tarleton.

Wilson, David K (2005)..As above.

Regards 24.2.149.109 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Striking the colors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chesapeake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Native American name controversy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo

I would like to ask if you could check whether I have correctly entered the honour received from Aldo, Giovanni & Giacomo, and whether I have entered it in the correct place. Thanks in advance. JackkBrown (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Banastre Tarleton

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Banastre Tarleton, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

URL status not working

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

re Banastre Tarleton references 32 & 33, I have set url-status= live but it doesn’t give the result I want. What’s wrong? Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like those two refs are working they way they are supposed to when url-status is set to status "live". Can you explain the difference between what it does and what you want? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a break, it seems correct, Jmcgnh (talk · contribs).

I now believe I was misinterpreting the MOS examples. I wish I could just stick to writing!

Thank you. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phocomelia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Craig.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have I encountered a student project?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The article Tarleton cap is new and has more problems than any article I’ve ever encountered, beginning with the complete lack of edit summaries. Most of the work has been done by new users, especially “Humok” who created it. Humok doesn’t have a user page for more private comment.

Before I flag the article in any way, I’d like to know if this is a student project. If so, how should that be handled?

If not a student, we all have to learn and I don’t want to discourage a new editor. I’d like advice.

These are the problems I see with the article: The name Tarleton cap is rarely used; searches risk being swamped by references to Tarleton University No edit summaries Inaccuracies copied without checking References to non-existent illustrations Run-on sentences Grammatical and spelling/typographical errors Citations which don’t work Even a statement in one source which should be verified in another source

Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a message about edit summaries to User talk:Humok. My advise would be to bring up the other issues there we well. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson article

Hi Humphrey Tribble, thanks for the note with the quote and citation about the role Jackson's mother played in forming his opinions of the British. I'm not comfortable adding the change myself without context on one of the talk pages. Could you give the context on the talk page, maybe giving the source without the full citation?

And if you like, maybe add the point to the article. As I've been pondering how to do it. I'm trying to keep adding new prose to a minimum, as one of the things holding the article up is length. It seems a point worth adding. Wtfiv (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic for this edit is severely flawed

Re this:

Yes, the picture shows the Mounties with the belt from front and back, but at some distance, with them on horseback and flags flying—many distractions for the reader. It is hard to distinguish the belts in the photo. A professional photo editor's employer would seriously question their judgement in preferring that image when others that better communicate information in the accompanying text are available.

Whereas, in the picture of the state trooper, there is no missing it.

Also, the section makes clear, New Jersey state troopers are the only police agency in North America for whom the belt is a standard feature of the uniform. Even the RCMP, the text clearly states, only wear it as part of their ceremonial uniforms. That offsets any claim that the picture of the Mounties takes precedence as the "more notable" agency (to which I should also add ... hmm? Since when did notability become a relative concept? It's rather like being pregnant ... something is either notable or it's not).

Reconsider. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My logic is fine,Daniel Case (talk · contribs). The section says the Sam Browne is now mostly worn for ceremony. The photograph you propose only shows half the belt.

Granted, the RCMP photo is busy, but no more so than the picture of a Marine in which the shoulder strap is almost invisible on a black uniform covered in decorations. The RCMP photo does at least show the full Sam Browne belt. But there are probably other RCMP photographs which might be better.

While the photograph of a New Jersey cop does illustrate a fact in the text, does it need to be illustrated? I think it is a poor image because, again, it shows only a shoulder strap. Nevertheless, if there is consensus to allow one more photograph, I wouldn't object to including both. Is that solution acceptable to you? Humpster (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We could probably stand to expand that section and properly source it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I apologize for my surliness above ... I was in a sour mood about something else when I got the revert notification. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted. Thank you.

According to the following site: https://www.rcmpolice.ca/dressregs.html

the RCMP also wear a Sam Browne belt in service order, fatigue order, and undress order. However, that site might not be official. Humpster (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I decided to look through the relevant Commons category for pictures of RCMP/GRC officers on the job.

The majority are of Mounties in ceremonial red, with the belt. But there are some of officers on more routine patrol in khaki or blue without the belt:

At the Preakness one year, no belt. But note the riding pants and boots, and being outside of Canada. He may have had his tunic (with belt) on and taken it off due to the weather and informal situation.
An officer at a port facility. No belt visible, but of course we can't see all of him.
A bunch I took myself, plus another one, where the officers are clearly not wearing Sam Brownes. However, in all of those they're wearing tactical vests, which for all I know may now be a requirement, and with those a Sam Browne belt at best looks stupid and at worst would be uncomfortable and inconvenient.

So, this seems to be an indication that in actual practice over the past decade, Mounties do not wear Sam Brownes. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nala (cat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moggie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello, I'm Raladic. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pride flag, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Some self published website doesn’t make WP:RS and the blue/pink/white helms design is most certainly the most commonly used trans flag. Please seek consensus on article talk pages before making such wide ranging edits Raladic (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Transgender flag. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. The helms design is most certainly the current commonly used transgender flag and other designs are alternatives, but not widely used by any stretch. Please seek consensus on the article talk page first before making such wide ranging changes. Raladic (talk) 06:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't provide enough explanation {{user|Raladic}}. We agree TG flags aren't outdated. You appear to agree that the Helms flag isn't the only transgender flag. Hence the definite article isn't correct. (The title is transgender flag not Helms's flag.)

I think we agree it's the most commonly seen TG flag in some portion of the world. But what is that portion? And what is the source for that claim? The article had only one source and it is no longer accessible. Your better source says "There are several alternative transgender flag designs." Alternative means "instead of" not subsidiary to.

I've used existing sources so if they are deficient, they affect even old versions of the article. I have posted items for discussion at transgender flag several times; there is no interest so I'm being bold. I haven't intentionally added original research or novel syntheses but that can arise inadvertently from rewording. Humpster (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you type transgender flag into any search engine, you will be presented with the helms design, which has become the de-facto trans flag design and has become synonymous for it, in that is widely used worldwide, including as part of the progress pride rainbow flag.

Every pride flag has some alternative designs, but that doesn't mean that one main design hasn't become the standard one people widely use with. Just as with article titles, we find consensus with the most widely commonly used ones, which for the trans flag is most certainly the helms design.

So instead of making the change you did based on one self published non-RS site, you could have asked for feedback first or searched for other better sources. I just did that and replied on the Talk:Transgender flag#"Most prominent" flag discussion with several good RS sources that show that the Helms design has become the de facto trans flag. Raladic (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with these references in ribbon work?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am editing ribbon work, and after more than an hour of poking and prodding and testing I have reached the limit of my patience.

Reference five claims a problem with the date. I've encountered issues related to time zones when I have archived an article, but I haven't done that in this case.

Reference seven claims a problem with the URL. But it is correct.

I've isolated the code to make it easier to examine. Humpster (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a puzzler alright.

I was able to repair the first error about the date simply by retyping the date.

The complaint about the URL is even more puzzling because of the way the square brackets are being rendered into the ref display, around both the title and the url link. I've also poked and prodded and stared at this problem for well over an hour without finding a solution. I'll leave the {{help}} active so you may have the benefit of some other helpers. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for trying. Your comment about retyping reminded me that someone once said I had spurious characters in something I wrote. So I tried retyping reference seven's URL entirely. Unfortunately, that didn't fix it. Humpster (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a couple dozen non-printing characters from the ==RCMP=== section. Specifically, it contained Bidirectional text characters.—Scottyoak2 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottyoak2: Masterful. Even looking at the diff for your fix, I can't see those characters. May I ask how you found them? — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jmcgnh:. In this case, I used the Show Non-Printing Characters feature of the text editor: NotePad++. Your comment about re-typing the date was a clue that something was hiding in the wikitext. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the fix Jmcgnh (talk · contribs) and ScottyOak2 (talk · contribs). I presume those characters are arising from the way I am editing. I make small changes directly via Safari on my iPad. But I assemble lengthy changes in iPad's Notes app. I don't know why nonprinting characters are getting in but I will know how to fix it in future. Again, thank you. This help question can be closed. Humpster (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add a photograph

I want to use a photograph from an RCMP press release in the article [[ribbon work]]

Here is the source:

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/news/2024/further-information-the-rcmps-inclusion-the-ribbon-skirt-the-approved-ceremonial-dress

And here are the conditions:

https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/terms-conditions says

"Unless otherwise specified you may reproduce the materials in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes, and in any format, without charge or further permission, provided you do the following:

Exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
Indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author (where available); and
Indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada."

I interpret that as "the Canadian government owns it but allows free use"

If someone would get it into Commons, I can handle adding it to the article.

Humphrey Tribble Humpster (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Plains Indian trading networks

Please sign your edits on the talk page. Creuzbourg (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ID added. I'll monitor. Humpster (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming expiry of your ipblock-exempt right

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your WP:IPBE right which gave you the ability to bypass IP address blocks will expire on 02:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC). If your IP is still blocked (which you can test by trying to edit when logged-out), please renew by following the instructions at the IPBE page; otherwise, you do not need to do anything. To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion. Leaderbot (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]