Talk:Elizabeth Robbins Stone

Response to request for speedy deletion

My plan was to complete the section "Enterprises" today that will provide information about why she was a significant historical figure - and inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame. As an elderly pioneer woman she made sigificant impact on the lives of people in the now Fort Collins area: Had the first grist mill built in the area, the 2nd in the state. Created a brick-building plant for better materials for building homes and other buildings. Ran hotels in the area. The first school in the area was run from her home, etc.

So, yes, I contest the speedy deletion. I'll get more info in and hopefully that will help demonstrate it better. I have much more to get into this article, including use of more sources.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to contest. The speedy request was declined. Could do with some beefing up though, so good to hear that is on its way. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thanks! I think (possibly biased <g>) that it's going to be an interesting article about early Colorado history by a woman who was for some time the only permanent woman living in that area.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, an autobiography, then. I think that you are discouraged from writing those here. :P - Sitush (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Self-published?

It seems as if the book by Wommack is self-published:

• the copyright is in her name (not alone an indicator)
• Caxton Press is said to have "bound and lithographed" the book
• It is not, nor is anyone else, listed as the publisher.

Is there something I'm missing that indicates the book is not self-published? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's quite a reputable press - not a vanity press. If it were Lulu or something like that, you'd know it's self-published. The Caxton Press website shows that they do both - printing of books and publishing of books - and Wommack is known for her books about Colorado history, so might be a good idea to determine for sure whether it's self-published before saying it is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

To close this out, changed "possibly" or "likely self-published for Caxton to "binder, lithographer". It seems curious to me that Caxton would not identify themselves as the publisher, but who knows.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Caxton is identified as the publisher everywhere the book is listed, such as Amazon, Google books, etc. Unless you have a reliable source that Caxton was not the publisher, please leave the unsupported conjecture out of the citation. Yworo (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yworo is right. I checked WorlCat, Amazon, the Caxton website, Wommack's website. We don't have a source telling us it's self-published, and until we do, we can't identify it as such, particularly when the press is a reputable press. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

retry, edit conflict

This seems to be an emotional issue and the days of polite discourse dwindling. There were reasons (mentioned above) why I identified it as "possibly self-published" but since there's this seems to an emotional issue and in the long run not a huge issue, I am totally cool with dropping it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not at all emotional. You posted about the article on a talkpage that I read, I had a look. As it happens it's a subject I know very well. I noted the edit to the publisher. As it happens, I'm also very familiar with Caxton Press' work. I made a change. You reverted & posted on the talkpage. I responded. There's nothing emotional here. This is how Wikipedia works. I also don't see anything here that's not polite. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's good to hear! Thanks, TK. There's no point in going into what I interpretted as inpolite or scolding. It is good to see another common interest, though!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wild Bill

Is there any chance that one of the teenage sons she was left to raise was Wild Bill ? The dates are about right, but it's hard to tell. He did spend a lot of time in Colorado, although I see that's not in his biography. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be a fun connection! Her maiden name was Hickok and married names were Robbins and Stone. Was "Hickok" Wild Bill's last name (or possibly took his mother's maiden name)?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

When he was born in 1837, Elizabeth was in St. Louis, Missouri (across the river from Ill.) and the family moved to Chester, Illinois in 1840.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Probably not, but a coincidence with the names. Not that usual of a name, and not that many people in that part of the country at that time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was an interesting question! I wondered if he might have been her nephew - thinking that like many families, they often migrated together - but it with a bit of exploration it doesn't look like it. Like you say, though, it's an unusual last name so it's possible there's some connection.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elizabeth Hickok Robbins Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722130924/http://www.cogreatwomen.org/stone.htm to http://www.cogreatwomen.org/stone.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504140639/http://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/oldfortsite.php to http://www.fcgov.com/historicpreservation/oldfortsite.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110619180528/http://fcmdsc.org/museum/courtyard.html to http://www.fcmdsc.org/museum/courtyard.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)