User talk:Piratedan

Wow! Thanks for the edits on Stede Bonnet! And...

Welcome!

Hello, Piratedan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --AW 19:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!

And thanks for joining Wikipedia! I'm glad you're here, it looks like you're getting the hang of things quickly. If you have any questions about anything, let me know! --AW 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy project

Hi Pirate Dan, would you be interested in hosting the temporary piracy project page? I would do it, but it looks like you have a lot of ideas already. Basically it's just a task list, similar to what is already at Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#Piracy. This is a good example of what it'd look like: User:/WikiProject_Polynesia. I can help you make it if you'd like. --AW 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, thanks for creating it and everything! It looks great --AW 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Whydah / Whidah / Whidaw

Ha, no problem; thanks to your edit, I had a grand old time looking up name variants for this doomed vessel. ;) Pirates are not the best spellers, and even their chroniclers rarely agree. I count at least three different spellings in other sources, and expect more (don't even get me started on Blackbeard's ships). Best, -- Docether 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate round

it would help if you could find and quote some uses of the exact term. I'm familiar with what you describe, but I have never heard it called that. One or two quotes with detailed sources, including page numbers, are what you need. DGG 07:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have now included direct quotes from David Cordingly and Jenifer G. Marx in the article. The Pirate Round is also referenced by name in Douglas Botting's The Pirates, but I don't have that book ready to hand, so I trust these two citations will be sufficient. Pirate Dan 05:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avast!!!

Arrrrrrhhhhhhhhhh, pirate dan, I be sorry fer revertin' yer edit to the blackbeard article!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrh!!! Yon vandals put in something about blackbeard bein' a homosexual, arrhhhhhhhh!! I did not see that ye had done somethin' constructive to the article since then!! arrhhhhhh!! I be apologizin, now go swab the deck!! Arhhhh!! - Abscissa 09:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Piracy

Hello Pirate Dan,

I noticed you've recently started WikiProject Piracy and I was wondering if the project would be interesting in merging with the piracy related wikiproject I proposed in June 2006 ? Although there were less members, the project did have a reference list, templates and other projects which might be helpful to the project. MadMax 13:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the template I created was a crude design and, as far as I know, wasn't used on any articles so that shouldn't be a problem. If there's anything I can help with on the project, please feel free to let me know. MadMax 03:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Dan, I've merged the former project page into the official WikiProjoct Piracy main page as well as some minor editing and have notifed the former members of the old project. If you disagree with any of these changes, please feel free to revert to the old page. I've also converted the {{piracy}} template into an invitation for the project. MadMax 05:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Quelch

Hello Piratedan! Anyway, I recently created the article John Quelch (pirate) and was wondering if you would look over it for me. I would like to submit it for the Did you know part of the front page about his flag, Old Roger. I was also wondering if I should name all of his crew that was hanged along with him. I recently joined the Wikiproject and also found this book called The Pirates' Who's Who. The books out of copyright so you can find the eBook on Project Gutenberg. Gonna try and use it to fill in red links on the Piracy pages. Oh yeah, one more thing about the Quelch article. Can you give me your opinion if that's enough to be considered not a stub? Also, please respond on my talk page. Thanks! Deflagro 00:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you tell me whether the category should be American pirates or English pirates since he was in Massachusetts when it was a British colony? Thanks Capp'n! Deflagro 00:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go ahead and add the list. If you could also go ahead and look it over that would be much appreciated! Deflagro 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for looking it over! So do you think I should submit the Do You Know part about how the theme was adopted by Blackbeard and Black Bart? Also thanks for the part about the Queen's evidence and the Silver Oar. The page I looked at had "Queen's evidence" but I didn't understand what that meant. Also can you explain to me a little more what it is and also what the Silver Oar is? Thanks! Also you might want to look at that book I mentioned. Lot of pirates in there. Realized it had so much of his crew because when I was searching for Quelch to jump back to the info about him, I found it so many times in it and saw it had most of his crew in there. Thanks Capp'n! Deflagro 19:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that last part about Did You Know. We have to have about 1,500 words and the article only has around 500... Deflagro 20:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Also it wasn't the just the first admiralty case in America, it was the first outside of England. Thanks for your help! Deflagro 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Quelch

Could you take another look at the Quelch entry and the edits that I made and were removed (rightly so) because of no citations? I am the author of "Quelch's Gold" and pretty much have the definitive account of Quelch and his case. I am grateful to Deflagro for starting the entry but his source (Pirate's Who's Who)is badly inaccurate on Quelch. Would appreciate some consensus from the team on this one. ThanksSilverhilt 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PirateDan: Thanks for the response. If you read some of Paine's other work, you'll see he was quite given to poetic license and playing loose with facts for the sake of a good story. I am convinced he made up the flag because every pirate needs his own. You won't find a source for Paine's assertion other than him quoting the crew which is impossible. After all, Paine was not an historian but a storyteller who was pals with Stephen Crane. The first modern retelling of Quelch's story was by the eminent New England historian Abner Goodell in the 1890s who took great pains to go through all the original surviving colonial records in Boston. I've taken things further by going to London and digging there at the National Archives. Dow and Edmonds in the 1920s also did a good job in their chapter on Quelch in "Pirates of the New England Coast". You make a valid point about the "first case of judicial murder" line but the quote is actually Goodell's and not mine. I still support it though because as crazy as the Salem trials were, they were operating under Massachusetts colonial law based on Mosaic Law (Old Testament)and witchcraft was an offense punishable by death I believe. Quelch's trial under English Admiralty Law was a travesty because of the lack of due process and the numerous mistakes made during the proceedings. Neither the Governor nor any of the participants had ever run such a court before and admitted as such. Governor Dudley even apologised to his boss in London for any irregularities! Best of all--and this is the kicker--the Admiralty courts in the colonies were declared illegal the following year and a new law resurrecting them had to be passed by Parliament. Quelch's trial was therefore illegal at the time it was held. It really is a fascinating story which is why I wrote the book.Silverhilt 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Quelch

Hi PirateDan: Plowman himself referred to Quelch as the Lieutenant in his letter to the owners concerning his worries about the quality of his crew. The trial transcript one year later also refers to the accused as "John Quelch, late of Boston...Mariner, Lieutenant of the Brigantine Charles" I, too, thought it strange that he would hold that title and I discuss this discrepancy in my book. Indeed I pointed out that Dampier referred to privateer vessels having the quartermaster as Number 2. Hope this clears things up.Silverhilt 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old Roger

In reference to "Old Roger" I have never heard this expression in any context other than Ralph Paine. He probably just took it from the term Jolly Roger from Jolie Rouge.Silverhilt 19:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bartholomew Roberts & other matters

That's interesting, that claim. That makes absolutely no sense at all though. Though I am not sure why you are telling me this! In other news, I emailed Silverhilt about using some of the images on his site, www.captain-quelch.com, particulary the images of the owner of Charles and also the brigantine that would've looked like Charles. I wasn't sure of the copyright so I emailed him first. ♣ Deflagro ♠ 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way. Would you like for me to make that Pirate Ship infobox? ♣ Deflagro ♠ 12:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I haven't been editing Black Bart recently. I've turned my attention to the Pirates template in making sure all those articles have that template on it and use the Pirate infobox. Also right now I am working on cleaning up Buccaneer. If I even noticed the edit, I wouldn't have minded. I've never been in an edit war either (except once I was fighting a vandalising IP address who was deleting whole sections of the article which resulted in the IP quickly beeing banned). I usually don't revert other peoples edits unless they make claims that go against other sources and they then don't cite their sources. ♣ Deflagro ♠ 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished a beta version of the ship infobox. You can find it at my sandbox. You can test it out in my sandbox or in your own or some other place. The Statistics bar won't appear unless you have something in there (such as yes). If you want me to change that to always appear, I can. Also do you want it to be like the Ship infobox where it also displays the flag? ♣ Deflagro ♠ 15:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piracy Portal

Hey been a while since I've seen you around here. In case you didn't hear, User:Mad Max (not User:MadMax) created Portal:Piracy. He's not too active so I have basically taken it over and am the only contributor. If you could help that'd be great! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Drake: Letter of Marque

I noticed you changed the Piracy page to say that Francis Drake was not a privateer in the sense that he did not have a letter of marque. I reverted that and cited a source that talks about it. If you go to Google Books and look at Sir Francis Drake: The Queen's Pirate, on page 241 it says "Her [(Queen Elizabeth)] decisions were implemented on 1 July 1585 with an order renewing Drake's commision." It then goes on to talk about the Privy Council giving letter of marques to merchant ships. I just now saw though this note on page 453 the letter being called a carta de merced. Not sure if this is before or after it was renewed. To view these passages when looking at the book just search "letter of marque." Deflagro ^C/_T 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well doesn't being commissioned by the queen count as a privateer? The sentence afterwards is the Privy Council giving out letters. I can't see the pages before it though so a hard copy of it will help a lot. Deflagro ^C/_T 21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pirates

Deflagro suggested I drop you a note, so here goes. We're working on an overhaul of the List of pirates article, and would welcome your input. What we've done so far can be seen on our sandboxes - My sandbox and Deflagro's sandbox.

Thanks, shas (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swordsmanship edit

Hi Piratedan (love the name btw) - You restored this edit saying the book was a legitimate source. It may be an appropriate source to use in the article but that section is supposed to be for sources that actually have been used. Did you (or do you know if other editors) have actually used the book to help write the article? If not it should not be in that section. If it was used ideally it would be added inline as the other sources in the article are. -- SiobhanHansa 18:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds unlikely it's been used in creating the article so a further reading section would be a much more appropriate place for it. -- SiobhanHansa 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Piracy participation update

Hello Piratedan,

WikiProject Piracy is currently undergoing some updates and changes, and we are trying to find out who is still active in the project. You are currently listed as a participant on the list of participants, and we would like for you to update your status. Please move your name to the section that best describes your activity in the project:

Active - still active and interested within the scope of the WikiProject.
Semi-Active - still active on Wikipedia, but not as active in regards to the WikiProject.
Former Members - a catch-all classification for those editors who are not active on Wikipedia, those that are still on Wikipedia, but no longer part of this WikiProject, or those that have otherwise not moved their names to another classification yet.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Island GAR notice

I have conducted a reassessment of the artcile as part of the GA sweeps process. The article needs some work to meet WP:GAC so has been delisted. You can find details of issues that need addressing at Talk:Treasure Island/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

All your changes to the Klan article, especially in "The Great Migration" section, have been great. You're obviously knowledgable and your contributions are making big improvements to the article's quality. I'm rather distracted with other projects, but strongly support your efforts. Thanks, Doc Tropics 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work; I salute you sir. Doc Tropics 14:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too, after all, you did the actual work :) Doc Tropics 18:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piratedan

The reason I took it down in the first place is because it had no citation whatsoever, not because I thought it wasn't true. In fact, I sort of hint at everything you're saying in the military section of my article Society of the Song Dynasty. Chinaknowledge is an OK source to cite when you just need minor stuff like a name or date, but not a whole paragraph in a Featured article. However, I'll give you as much time as you need to get your source through interlibrary loan, since I am aware of how long it takes (I've had to use it plenty of times in the past). Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you do finally cite your source, please conform it to the Harvard citation style that all other citations use. They look like this when you type them out: <ref>{{Harvnb|Sastri|1984|pp=173, 316}}</ref>, just as an example. It follows a pretty simple model of author's last name, year of publication, and then the pages used. Check the "References" section at the bottom of the article for how to write out the full source. For example, {{citation |last=Sastri |first=Nilakanta, K.A. |title=The CōĻas |year=1984 |publisher=University of Madras |location=Madras |isbn= }} For some odd reason this source does not have its ISBN number, but that last field is where it should go when you cite Bai Shouyi's Outline History of China. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Robert Waterman (sea captain)

On September 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert Waterman (sea captain), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Calvin

I know it might appear to be straining a gnat, but I really do think attributing the charges against Servetus solely to Calvin's hand is confusing. When reading the two different articles, (Calvin's and Servetus') one could come to two completely different conclusions with regard to who drew up Servetus' charges. The quote from Calvin's letters in the Servetus article leads one to believe Nicholas de la Fontaine drew them up and, admittedly, he did. While it may stand that he was Calvin's secretary, it nonetheless falls on la Fontaine as to who drew the charges. Also, I see no source to suggest he did so at Calvin's behest. I don't know if he did or not, but I don't think that the facts that he drew up the charges and was Calvin's secretary leads to the conclusion that he drew up the charges in his capacity as Calvin's secretary. If there's something to tie the action of drawing the charges with his operation as secretary to Calvin, I think the case for including Calvin would be stronger. In either case though, solely placing the act on Calvin is confusing, as he did not draw the charges. At most, he ordered them drawn by la Fontaine.

Shazbot85^Talk

Sorry, one more comment. I'm not familiar with any independent source that would indicate Calvin was being disingenuous. While everyone is prone to be so at some point, I don't know how someone could assume he was being so; something would have to indicate that.

Cheers,

Shazbot85^Talk

I agree in that I think attributing the charges to Calvin's secretary is more accurate as to what we know from what we have. As it stands, la Fontaine did draw the charges and he was Calvin's secretary. Both those being true, stating those two things and no further I think is the most correct, and fails to reach the ultimate conclusion, which we can only speculate regarding.

Shazbot85^Talk

"Regarding the charges, would it not be best to simply report the facts, along these lines: "Calvin's secretary Nicholas de la Fontaine drew up a list of charges against Servetus"? That leaves open the (in my view unlikely) possibility that Fontaine acted independently, while not concealing the actual relationship between him and Calvin."

I agree with the proposed edit. I think it's neutral and conveys the relevant facts in the best way possible. Shazbot85^Talk 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avast!

A glass for ye. Talk like a pirate (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page John Calvin

Please take a look at my comments on Calvin's talk page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check and correct

Would You mind to check Duel#Pre-history of Duelling in Russia -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swordmanship

Sorry about my edit error. I was in the middle of the edit than had to log off. I should have just came back later. The refference is in the book "Medieval Swordsmanship" by John Clements. What is the best way to submit it? Should I scan the page than upload it to wikipedia? Again, sorry for the newbie mistake, I really hope to contribute to this topic. Thank you. Armorbearer777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvin edits

Pirate Dan, I made several comments regarding the sections on John Calvin and the issues concerning democracy and the American form of government. I am not a registered user, and the page is still protected. I have laid out a detailed case for my reasoning. I would appreciate your thoughts. I don't think the article is balanced when it simply states that John Calvin had a "particular" impact upon the American form of government. There are historians who disagree (which I cite) that I believe are more influential and significant than a modern day Tennessee preacher who may or may not have a political agenda. I think the problem is that people are confusing Calvinist work ethic among the later generations of his followers with John Calvin the man. I don't think its intellectually honest to say John Calvin particularly impacted the American form of government. John Knox had as great, if not greater, impact upon it. The sources indicate that Calvinists went on in a direction that were not necessarily indicative of John Calvin's own teachings. Please look at the Discussion PAge for John Calvin again for much more detail. Thank you. Oghmatist (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Robinson article

Wow... I can't believe I made that mistake. I know better than that, too- I've watched Ken Burns' documentary all the way through, I must've just had a mental lapse. Thanks for correcting me on the dates. Not my day, is it? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Legend

Hi, I appreciate your involvement at Black Legend, but your recent edit instating Powell's "actual language" seems to me to be a mistake - what Powell says is "not equaled" is not the actual treatment of the indians, but rather the "tutelage and official concern for the welfare of" - Powell uses this formulaytion exactly to show that what is different between the Spanish and other colonial attitudes is the fact that the Spaniards discussed the ethics of conquest more than, and earlier than, any other colonial power, but according to most current historians those discussions did not actually result in practical changes in the treatment of the indians. The New Laws were for example repealed within a decade of being passed and due to protests by colonists threatening with becoming civil warsthey were never put into effect in New Spain or Peru. The mistake of assuming that the fact that the Spanisg had legislation to protect the indians also means that they did protect the indians is what Historians such as Benjamin Keen has associated with the White Legend - Powell, doesn't commit that mistake when he says that the Spanish "official concern" was unequaled. What he calls "tutelage" was of course the Spanish efforts at religios education of the indians - e.g. what is now called the "spiritual conquest" which is often considered a kind of cultural colonization and similarly oppresive as the violent conquest. I would appreciate if you changed the Powell quote to something that reflects his statement better. I would also appreciate a lot if you keep up the good work and keep an eye on the article, I have a feeling that if we don't do that the article will become very biased very quickly. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point

i agree and see the point, thanks--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longley?

My edits are covered in Legend? Are you kidding? That entire section is complete speculation without inline cites. I am reverting your vandalism of my good faith edit because it is fully cited unlike the original research in your Legend section. If you can disprove it properly with a clear citation then great but legend is completely un-encyclopedic --Hutcher (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Piratedan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]