User talk:Drewkeeling
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Talkback
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill. Such links are almost always unintended...It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
REPLY TO DPL bot message re Disambiguation: Thanks. Fixed that now Drewkeeling (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Amortias (T)(C) 00:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Napoleonic wars: Must have a published RS
I am sorry that we have started an unnecessary war. Wikipedia rules are very clear: Statements have to have a reliable secondary source, and your own personal webpage does not count. let me make four points: # 1-2-3 = ironclad procedural rules in Wikipedia.
1. As far as Historical Statistics of the United States is concerned--It's a compendium of primary data that has to be filtered through a published reliable source rather than just your own blog. the rule = " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." WP:WPNOTRS
2. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." = WP:RS. ie, please cite a book or journal.
3. "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." = WP:USERG Now I certainly agree that you ARE a real expert in the field of migration & historical demography, it's just you have to publish your results & then you can cite yourself.
4. In terms of substance, I would also question your text. The legacy section on the wars is about long-term effects, rather than short run catch-up movements that were briefly high only because transatlantic travel was disrupted 1810-1815. You might also note Grabbe who argues that in terms of American demography, the 1800-1830 period with a natural growth rate of 32%, belongs in the previous century. Less than 10% Of US population growth before 1820 was due to emigration from Europe. Rjensen (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- PS we're both getting in trouble on the WP:3R rule. We're not allowed to edit this migration point on this article 24 hours. So let's discuss it on the talk page or here. Rjensen (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Richard, As I mentioned in my first comment on your Talk Page, I am fairly inexperienced with Wikipedia. I have the impression that some of these rules you mention are more "honored in the breach" here, but I certainly have no problem with citing "reliable, third party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It is true that my website is "self-published," but one reason for it is to provide historians, especially economic historians, with an overview of my many published articles, and my book, which as a dissertation was awarded the Gerschenkron Prize. I never met Gerschenkron, and some of his conclusions are contested (as are more than a few topics in migration history) but I think it is rather elementary that stable peaceful transatlantic transportation was a prerequisite for the sort of massive longstanding migration from which probably a majority of Americans today are descended. America's historically high pre-industrial birth rate (highlighted by Malthus) does not mean that immigration was not also significant, at least between 1815 and 1914 (the end and beginning of two great Europe-wide wars). See your talk page for more (I am not quite sure how such exchanges are supposed to occur). I'll add the published sources to the Napoleonic Wars footnotes soon, if they are not erased again next time I check. Drewkeeling (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- First of all notice the wp:3R rule: both of us are under a 24-hour ban on editing that part of the Napoleonic wars article. And yes, Wikipedia rules do get enforced. I really enjoyed discussing demographic history, and I'm delighted that you have signed up with Wikipedia. But you Cannot cite yourself until you publish an article on the topic. The demographic history of migration is a very big topic, and I see very little connection to the Napoleonic wars. After 1815, for example, most of migration came from Britain and Ireland, just as it had before the wars. As I see it, the big change came in the 1830s, and 1840s, caused by important demographic push factors in Europe (Irish famines, land shortages in Germany) and powerful Pull factors in the United States (eg the opening up of the vast Western farming regions, plus after 1830 the rapidly increasing demand for factory/mill workers, construction workers, etc.) Countries like France and Italy & Belgium that were heavily influenced by the Napoleonic wars, saw very little emigration before 1860. Let me note that demographic history is not well represented in Wikipedia. Most of the editors are military history buffs, or perhaps interested in political history. Social history is far behind. Finally let me add that the amateurs who mostly edit Wikipedia know very little historiography, and have little exposure to the journal literature. You could do a great service by summarizing some of that historiography. :) Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Richard: No problem waiting 24 hours. I actually should be working on other things (non-self publications, some considerably overdue, etc.!). I see your points about big changes of the 1830s and '40s and I think the migration historiography supports them. (Although the German migration to America was big already in the 18th century - and from 1840s to 1890s, though not 1820s and '30s). My angle is a related but different one. As fascinating as they are, the pushes and pulls of migration are not my main focus. Still less, the even more topical EFFECTS of migration, on employment, business, growth, schooling, culture, etc.
My main interest is in the physical process of migration: the actual movement of people across long distances, usually voluntary, for the purpose or with the result of long term relocation. The mass TRAVEL that mass migration necessarily entails, and the business, regulatory structures, etc. going along with it. There was no way to migrate across the North Atlantic, the world's biggest migratory corridor during 1815-1914, except on a oceangoing ship, and that is why that period is significantly and distinctly different for migration than the periods of blockades, ship seizures, privateering etc. during Napoloeonic Wars (and for blockades and submarine warfare after 1914) where such travel was greatly restricted. In other words, your well-taken points re Wikipedia rules are appreciated and I will revise my footnotes to bring them up to standard, but will pass on any extended excursions into demographic history, at least for now.Drewkeeling (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay fair enough. Wikipedia needs coverage of the travel process, which is badly underdeveloped. Other people can write about the demographic impacts. Suggestion: Why not add some text to the International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919)#Travel section, this time based on your unpublished work and other published work. Rjensen (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, Richard. I cannot jump straight into a new Wikipedia area, but will make a note to do something on international relations and power, when I have time (maybe after the summer break). Despite the somewhat abrupt introduction, I am happy to have made your acquaintance this way. If further questions or issues arise of a general nature (e.g. other than rules on footnote sources, frequency of edits, etc. which of course should be dealt with promptly), may I suggest we communicate via e-mail? My e-mail address is on my website. I won't be checking it very often during summer vacation, but otherwise monitor it pretty much daily.Drewkeeling (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Update: Footnotes to the Napoleonic Wars article have now been upgraded, as discussed above. See also talk page of Rjensen.Drewkeeling (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Waterloo
I helped to take the article into "Good article" status and have worked on it extensively - so yes I feel I have a level of custodianship. Who doesn't have a PhD? I certainly have. I have also written many monographs on Napoleonic military history subjects, which have been published online and in printed journals. Indeed I won an international prize for one of them. Having disposed of any claims of superior knowledge or intellectual authority you may have implied, let us return to the question of your recent additions. I agree that there should be more material on the long-term effects of the battle. However, at present this section closes on the, highly disputable, assertion that the battle had favourable effects on the trade and economy of the USA. This is too prominent a place for this assertion in the article. It suggests that the most important result of the battle was on the USA, rather than opening the way for German unification under Prussia, for example, or creating the conditions for the eventual creation of the state of Belgium, or indeed leading to half a century of international peace in Europe.
It is usual to argue something that is in dispute on the talk page of the article before making changes. Something I initiated, but you signally failed to engage in. You seem to be looking for a cassus belli for an edit war rather than engaging in a civilised argument. Please prove me wrong. Urselius (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, Urselius. I will reply on the Waterloo talk page.Drewkeeling (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Drewkeeling. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Drewkeeling. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Select Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_dgPLu8eATj9egst&Q_CHL=gl
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Drewkeeling. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)