Regarding your edits to Wikipedia:New user log:Edit

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:New user log (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, forum, or other such free-hosting website links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles AsgillEdit

I have responded over at Wikipedia:New user log#Arbil44. You got reverted above because you posted an email address and new users who do that are often spammers. Pomte 11:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the copyright of that picture may have expired since it's so old. See Public domain#British law. It's better to ask an expert; I am not familiar with these policies. Pomte 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To upload the image, click here, click the "Browse" button to select the file from your computer, click the drop-down menu to select one of the licenses, then click the "Upload file" button. To respond to this message, click here. Pomte 15:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:BD - Photo of MY picture of Asgill.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading Image:BD - Photo of MY picture of Asgill.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#QUESTIONS_FROM_ARBIL44_ABOUT_ASGILL_BARONET_PAGESEdit

I hope that helps (follow the link above) Megapixie 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question is actually - trickyEdit

I'm seeing what the policy is here Megapixie 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to you directly. After you read what I've said, let me know what you would like. Okay? Jkelly 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Hey you blanked my post. I hope it was an error on your part. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles AsgillEdit

Hi, I added that image back to the article, I put it in the top image location, although it can be somewhere else also. I didn't know where you wanted it. Sorry for all the confusion regarding licensing. UK licensing can be somewhat confusing at times. :) Anyway, I think it's public domain, so no complex licensing at all :) Thanks again for getting this image for wikipedia. If you have any other questions please let me know on my talk page, or on the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions page. :) - cohesion 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is public domain it can be on wikimedia commons, I've uploaded it there also [1] - cohesion 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signing your messagesEdit

  Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button   or   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - I see that you were trying to add one or more images but didn't know how to do it. There are various relevant links from WP:Images. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

In particular, you need to be aware of the copyright restrictions. The photo at is copyrighted so cannot be used at Wikipedia. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


I see that you added an external link in a place where it doesn't belong. If it was intended to be a reference, the way of doing that is described at WP:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


Please read wp:COI, as you may be related to a topic you are editing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why it has come up now, but none the less you are not impartial on this subject. Also some of what you say above seems to imply you are relying overly much on wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
YOu can, if you look at my signature you will see talk, click on that and you go to my talk page. As to how to sign, use four ~ and that should do it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
You put the four ~ at the end of your post, not in the edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
There are a number of places you can complain to if you feel you (or your content) are being unfairly treated wp:rsn, wp:blp, wp:n, wp:npov, but only raise an issue at one of those (see wp:forumshop) to complain about a user go to wp:ani (I would not however take that course, trust me).Slatersteven (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Too much had been removed for me to list it, as to any block, you are free to delete this form your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Arbil44! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (Arbil44 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Artaxiad 13:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)" I am truly heartbroken about events of yesterday. Arbil44 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you do not know how to delete messages form your talk page then maybe you need to use the tutorial. Click edit and then highlight the text and delete it (right click over the highlighted text). A user can remove it for you (but only if you ask, there are some very rare exception (and an exception in that you can remove posts from your talk page), but in general no one can remove another users posts) but really at the end of the day your talk page is your responsibility and you do need to learn how to use it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

External linksEdit

I reverted your recent edit which tried to add a number of misplaced external links, including to Wikipedia pages. Please read about external links, wikilinks, and references. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I have reverted your most recent edit as again you added misplaced external links. In my first message in this section I gave you wikilinks to information about external links, wikilinks, and references; you need to read those. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019Edit

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. To repeat an edit which you had been told was unacceptable is liable to be regarded as tendentious editing. David Biddulph (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The changes between the two edits were minimal, and the edit was unacceptable for the same reasons as the previous attempt. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect page given 28-SEP-2019Edit

Hello! I have to apologize, I gave you the wrong page address to post on for your request concerning copyright use with a photograph we were discussing. The correct page would be Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Im sorry about the mistake, that was my fault. If you could post your question there, that would be perfect. Also, it's routine to ask the question anew when asking for help in these talk pages. You can link to the previous discussion in your post asking for assistance, but reposting the entire conversation is not usually done. If you could go ahead and rephrase the question regarding the picture, keeping in mind to keep the question simple and to the point, that would be best. Also, a {{request edit}} template is not needed for your question on the copyright question talk page. Thank you again, and I'm sorry for the confusion. If you require any more assistance, please dont hesitate to ask. Warm regards,  Spintendo  08:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just wanted to note two things — I noticed on your talk page that another editor also directed you to the media copyright questions page 12 years ago. I don't know if that was concerning the same question you have now or not. But in any event, Wikipedia is not a subscription service in the traditional sense (meaning something you have to pay a subscription for). Wikipedia is free to use and doesn't cost anything, I just wanted to make sure you knew that. As far as the edits at the Asgill page, I wanted to make sure that we have consensus before anything is added to the article. That means making sure everyone is on board with the changes. Also, because you are a distant relative to the subject, it would be best if you let others make changes to the article. That's simply because your role as a Wikipedia editor may come into conflict with your role as the distant relative to the subject of the article. That doesnt mean that you are banned from making edits — it only means that you're strongly advised to let others make the edits for you. That final decision of whether to edit the page or not is up to you. I've pinged a few of the other local editors to see how they feel about this latest proposal we've been working on, so the ball is now in their court if they choose to respond. It would be nice to hear what they have to say, because at the end of the day, the best chance of making lasting changes to the article needs to involve their input as well as ours. Thank you again for your help, it's much appreciated! Regards,  Spintendo  10:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
In the highly unlikely event someone speaks to me, I will not be replying, because I am no longer here from late tonight. I will never be back. Besides, I will be looking after my husband following his cancer surgery. Arbil44 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


Referencing on talk pagesEdit

Hi. Just a note to say that when you want to link to a source during a discussion on a talk page, you don't need to use the <ref>...</ref> tags that are used in articles. Doing so results in a collection of references appearing at the bottom of the page, which can be confusing on a talk page, which doesn't have a references section. It's usually best to just put the link in single square brackets. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy BirthdayEdit

Hi, I am wishing you all the best for this important day.

WP is a sort of informal committee of thousands of editors. As such, it operates with all of the functional dysfunction of any large committee - the functioning of which is inversely proportional to the number of its members. And a camel is a horse designed by a committee. Brief talk page posts can appear abrupt but what I am seeing is genuine good faith dialogue to improve the article in accordance with our style guide - which can sometimes be a little unclear. This is all the more difficult because of your COI (I take it that you are a decendant). Please, do not take the editorial process as a personal slight. Ultimately (and hopefully) consensus is what everybody can live with - even if it is not what everybody wants.

Can I make you aware of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I will be adding to the discussion at Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. Do you think you could get a hold of this source. Also, you might consider finding sources on how to style titles (such as Debrett's. Regards, and my sincere best wishes. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit


Hi Arbil44! You created a thread called Direct Quote from a 1786 manuscript at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019Edit

I reverted the change which you made today to the name of his bride because your change contradicted the reference cited for that sentence. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

When you tried to change it again you messed up the referencing. The page which you cited was not sufficiently specific to support the sentence where you were using it, and that existing reference (named GEC, for "George Edward Cokayne") is also reused elsewhere in the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (October 27)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
David.moreno72 08:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Arbil44! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 08:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Ann ManselEdit

Hi - The article is now at Mary Ann Mansel and the discussion is at Talk:Mary Ann Mansel. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dormskirk - I've just come across a Google pdf which gives details of Manners place of death but don't know how to link to show you. I was wondering (if you can find it here: lingo lns h(re. - Special Collections › digital › api › collection › download) whether there could be a comment on Manners' page reading "He is buried, with his parents, at the church of St. Mary the Virgin, Bloxholm". Edited to add: the pdf. is 3rd down here: [2] Arbil44 (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I decided to copy and paste from the pdf. since I have no idea how to link a pdf. Please change if this is not acceptable. Arbil44 (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I have just spotted this and have actioned it. Happy Christmas. Dormskirk (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you (the C&P was hellish mind you, given the font!) but Happy Christmas to you too. Arbil44 (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mansel brothers' military serviceEdit

I tracked down all their promotions in the London Gazette a couple of days ago, and was just about to post them to your talk page when I saw that Mary Ann Mansel now has an article to herself. I'll just add the information there. I don't know which of them would have been based in Maidstone in 1823, though. Herbert was too young. Robert's regiment, the Inniskilling Dragoons, was in Ireland from 1819 to May 1823, when they moved to Glasgow (Cannon). George's regiment, the 30th Foot, was in India from 1809 to 1829 (Mills). I suppose one of them must have been on leave. Opera hat (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

User boxesEdit

Does this look any better? If this is OK, I can insert the two photos and publications bit. below. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

enThis user is a native speaker of the English language.
 This user lives in the United Kingdom.
 This user can get online. Did you know that?
N WThis user is never wrong. Once,
he/she thought he/she was wrong,
but he/she was mistaken.
 This userbox was put here by mistake.
This user doesn't know what the hell s/he's doing.
 This user pretends ignorance and stupidity for tactical reasons.
?This user just doesn't get it.

 This user is an unskilled worker, and damn good at it.
  This user is just waiting for someone to try to delete this userbox

 This user is interested in the American Revolutionary War.
  This user is a former member of the Royal Navy.
Sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Image without licenseEdit

Unspecified source/license for File:80th Regiment of Foot (Royal Edinburgh Volunteers) Officers Uniform.jpgEdit

Thanks for uploading File:80th Regiment of Foot (Royal Edinburgh Volunteers) Officers Uniform.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 19:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The Gordons of EllonEdit

Note on the family of Gordon of Ellon [Typed by Robert Balfour, Lord Lieutenant of Fife, from his family history records. These are the records his grandfather would have discussed with Katherine Mayo] [capitalisation by me and internet link added by me too]

1. James Gordon [JG’s GRANDFATHER] son to a farmer in Bourtrie in Aberdeenshire became a Baillie in Edinburgh and a rich man from his business in the that city. He purchased the estate of Ellon and had issue four sons and a daughter. A tragic story is connected with the two eldest boys John and Alexander. In 1717 James Gordon had a villa near Edinburgh in Broughton and had engaged a tutor for his sons, one Robert Irvine, a licentiate of the Church of Scotland, the family then consisting of the two boys and their sister. It appears that the two boys being then aged respectively eight and nine years noticed their tutor taking liberties with one of the servant girls of the house and mentioned it to their parents. Robert Irvine was reprimanded by Mr Gordon but forgiven. He appears however to have brooded over the event and conceived the design of murdering the whole family of children. On the 28th April 1717 Mr and Mrs Gordon went to town with a friend taking their daughter with them and leaving the two boys at home. Robert Irvine then proceeded to put his diabolical design in to execution. Taking the two boys out for a walk on the ground where now the New Town stands close to the site of the present Register House he then and there “most barbarously and villainously” a contemporary account says cut their throats and proceeded to try and drown himself in the Water of Leith. The murder was however witnessed from the old town and Irvine was seized, his throat which he had tried to cut on finding he was pursued, stitched up, and he was taken to the Main Guard. Two days after on the 30th April , he was tried by the Baron Baillie of Broughton, convicted, and sentenced to have his two hands struck off and fixed on poles on the top of the Broughton Tolbooth, and to be hung and his body thrown into the Quarry Hole near where the murder took place. The sentence was carried out on the following day.,+Baron+Baillie+of+Broughton&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj__9nRuPblAhUDi1wKHf4nC2QQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Irvine%2C%20Baron%20Baillie%20of%20Broughton&f=false James Gordon had two other sons William and James – and died before 1732

In the margin alongside this the following is written View of the Diocese of Aberdeen pat 1730 James Gordon married 1708 (?) Elizabeth Livingston. A large quantity of table linen with the above names and date descended to Mrs Balfour of Balbirnie who left it to Miss Balfour of Kingsdale who in her turn left to the Melville family. It is now in the possession of Lady Susan Leslie Melville Scots Courant no 1785 from Friday April 20 to Sunday April 29 1717

2. James Gordon [JG’s FATHER] was served heir to his father on July 25th 1732 and to his brother William who died Feb 27th 1732 on the 22nd November of the same year. He married Elizabeth Glen and died before 1752 when the estates of Ellon were sold by public roup by the commissioners of his widow to George 3rd Earl of Aberdeen for £17000 besides 200 guineas for a gown to the said Elizabeth upon the renunciation of her inferent. He appears to have had two daughters one of whom married John Lumsden of Blanearne and died without issue. The other Mary Ellen married John Balfour of Balbirnie 1771

In the margin “he appears to have died before 1750 leaving issue a son



LINLITHGOW LIVES – Insights into Linlithgow life through the centuries by BRUCE JAMIESON

WHO WAS MRS GLEN GORDON? [capitalisation in the text below is mine, not the author’s]

Ever since I came to live in Linlithgow – almost 50 years ago – I have been familiar with the story of Mrs Glen Gordon: how she entertained Bonnie Prince Charlie in the Palace, setting the fountain in the inner courtyard flowing with red wine. However, I have never been sure who the lady actually was. Some records refer to her as ‘Keeper of the Palace’, other writers call her the ‘Deputy Keeper’ and some make mention of her simply as ‘a housekeeper’. SHE WAS NOT, as is sometimes claimed, the sister of James Glen, 18th century Provost of Linlithgow and later Governor of South Carolina. So who was she? [N.B. in General Graham’s Memoirs it is stated: “(Note. * When the Chevalier arrived in Scotland in 1745, he was hospitably entertained in Linlithgow Palace by Major Gordon’s mother, Mrs. Glen Gordon, her brother, Governor Glen, being at that time keeper of the palace.” SAMUEL GRAHAM KNEW JAMES GORDON, SO WHO IS RIGHT ON THIS POINT? GRAHAM’s ACCOUNT PROBABLY CAME DIRECT FROM JG HIMSELF]

She appears to have been born in Edinburgh, in a house in the Luckenbooth Buildings, around the year 1710, the daughter of Mr Glen of Ecclesmanglen and Agnes Graham, whose father, James, was a wealthy Edinburgh merchant and baillie.

[Image: James Gordon’s map showing the Luckenbooth buildings just behind St Giles church ]

Nothing is known of her early life but in her twenties she married a Mr Gordon of Ellon and was thereafter known as Mrs Glen Gordon. The lady appears to have been connected through marriage to the Livingstone family, the heads of which household had been EARLS OF LINLITHGOW [is this what Meg has expected me to find I wonder – or something else – I suspect the latter?] until they lost the title as punishment for supporting the first Jacobite Rebellion. They were also stripped of their position as hereditary Keeper of Linlithgow Palace. However, they remained a powerful family and through their auspices, Mrs Glen Gordon seems to have secured a position in Linlithgow Palace – either as an official custodian or as someone commissioned to run the household affairs.

Living in the royal residence, she must have been aware of the stories concerning the beautiful carved fountain in the centre of the inner courtyard: how it depicted the Court of King James V with water representing the king’s benevolence pouring from the crowned summit and falling over all aspects of 18th century life – real and mythological.

Mrs Glen Gordon must have known too how the cascade had dispensed red wine to celebrate the marriage of King James V and Mary of Guise in 1538. The same alcoholic outpourings had happened in 1603 to celebrate King James VI of Scots becoming King James I of the United Kingdom.

[Image: Linlithgow Palace Fountain] I would like this image on the right used please – and it is already on Wikipedia. One hundred and forty two years after this Union of the Crowns, it must have seemed natural to Mrs Glen Gordon to continue the practice of alcoholic rejoicing on the visit of the Young Pretender, Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart – better known as Bonnie Prince Charlie.

[Image: An actor recreates the visit of Bonnie Prince Charlie]

The “Young Chevalier” arrived in Linlithgow on September 15th, 1745. (JG WOULD HAVE BEEN 10 YEARS OLD – PERHAPS THIS IS WHAT MEG IS REFERRING TO ABOUT HIS EARLY LIFE?] He was not welcomed by the town’s Provost as John Bucknay had fled, fearing perhaps the legendary, disorderly reputation of the Highland soldiers. His wife and daughters were less worried however, and donning tartan gowns and white cockades, they welcomed the Prince at the Cross, kissing his hand and escorting him up to the Palace – the centuries old home of his Stewart ancestors.

[Image: The white cockade worn by Jacobite Captain James Macdonald. The symbol is said to come from a white dog rose picked by the Young Pretender on his arrival in Scotland and stuck in his bonnet.]

The free flowing fountain was no doubt well frequented and a good deal of red wine must have been drunk in honour of the Bonnie Prince’s return to claim the throne of his father, James, the Old Pretender. It is recorded that “the Palace Guardian, Mrs Glen Gordon, spared no expense in regaling the royal retinue with as much wine as either the old palace or her own finances could afford.”

After suitable refreshments had been partaken, with the 25-year old prince charming all the womenfolk present, Charles moved off, spending the night in Kingscavil House – his troops camping in Threemiletown.

Initially the Jacobites were successful – entering Edinburgh, winning the Battle of Prestonpans and invading England as far as Derby. However, the decision was taken to retreat back to Scotland and the last Jacobite victory followed in mid January 1746, when Government forces were defeated at the Battle of Falkirk. The next time Linlithgow Palace featured in the story was when it was pressed into service to house Government troops led by General Hawley.

In the morning of February 1st, 1746, they hurriedly departed their quarters, leaving their overnight campfires burning around the Palace. Whether by accident or design, the ancient residence of the Stewarts was set ablaze and largely destroyed. It is said that Mrs Glen Gordon rushed into the courtyard, pleading with the departing troops to put out the conflagration. On being ignored she uttered the words that have been passed down through the ages. Referring to the defeats suffered by the Government army at Prestonpans and Falkirk she cried, “Weel, weel, I can rin awa’ frae fire as fast as you can”.

[Image: Thomas Allam’s 1835 etching of the burning of Linlithgow Palace.]

Little effort seems to have been made to extinguish the blaze and it is reported that although several locals arrived at the scene they were more intent in removing whatever they could salvage. Some of the wood panels survived and are now held by the National Museum of Scotland.

On his return to the burgh, Provost Bucknay was ordered to conduct an enquiry into the disaster and several witnesses, including Mrs Glen Gordon, were interviewed. However, in the political climate, and after the Jacobite defeat at Culloden, it was unlikely that any blame would be allocated to the government army or its commanders.

After 1746, the derelict residence no longer needed a Keeper and so Mrs Glen Gordon fades into obscurity. The only other reference I can find of her is mention made in the COURT RECORDS of King George III. She is reported as attending an audience with the monarch in 1762 – and even then, in middle age, still wowing onlookers with her looks – “obviously at one time a veritable Ninon de l’Enclos” said one observer, referring to a famous 17th century good-looking French courtesan.

On being introduced to the king, she told him that she had four beautiful daughters [JG’s sisters] who were each married in one of his four kingdoms. “I have heard of three” said King George, “but never four.” “Did your Majesty never hear of the Kingdom of Fife?” was Mrs Glen Gordon’s reply Obviously her feistiness had not left her. [story is here too ]

Recently “Jacobites” returned to the Palace when scenes from “OUTLANDER” were filmed there [I just knew this story wouldn’t end without an official reference to Outlander!] – the building being used as Wentworth Prison. This has seen a rise in visitor numbers – all able to buy Outlander souvenirs such as a “Tribute to Jamie Fraser white cockade”. But I wonder how many visitors know the story of Mrs Glen Gordon?

I’m pretty nervous to post anything now, and I’m not looking to fall out with you Dormskirk – I too want this to be as good as I can make it - so could this link to the Balfour connection (who are now Heads of the Clan Gordon of Ellon) be added to his nephew’s listing?
This is a blogspot and cannot be used per WP:RS. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
You've used Nick Kingsley's Landed Families page several times before on Asgill and Mary Ann, so I thought it was acceptable. Arbil44 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I take the point. But WP:RS specifically rules out blogspots. We should really be removing material from Asgill and Mary Ann. I suggest we do not go there. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone here know that Nick is (or was, may be retired now) an archivist at the National Archives, Kew? He takes his work seriously and, having communicated with him over several years, I find it hard to accept this condemnatory approach. The poor man is only up to 'B'! Sorry, but there it is. Arbil44 (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Baillie James Gordon of Edinburgh is JG’s Grandfather, so could we give this link for his father’s mention? I also see, from this link,, that JG's grandmother's kinsman was that rascal, the 3rd Earl of Aberdeen. I've gone round in circles, no wonder it was all so confusing. JG's grandfather is also mentioned here too, although it would seem to be wrong, Ellon was sold by his wife, not him.
The link does not seem to mention the subject's father so I don't see that it helps. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Why can't we mention his grandfather as well as his father?Arbil44 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The wiki link shows the link to the 3rd Earl - can't that be mentioned? Arbil44 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I now understand the point but it would be pretty off topic to start talking about grandfathers. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The link between James Glen and his sister Mrs Glen Gordon is here, so I think Bruce Jamieson is wrong in his conclusion – could it be added alongside James Glen?,+countess+of+dalhousie&source=bl&ots=SATLOkJgrw&sig=ACfU3U1bqsL7AEHwao7gNhNzaxkQOiFniQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4k4jT7vHlAhUBYsAKHW6UBjkQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Elizabeth%20Glen%2C%20countess%20of%20dalhousie&f=false
This just seems to be an index: I don't see how it helps. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The second of the two pages, page 130, mentions "his sister" so seems relevant to me. Arbil44 (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I now understand the point but citing an index would be pretty obscure and I am not sure the average reader would get it - I certainly did not. Dormskirk (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not citing an index, I am citing page 130 of "James Glen: From Scottish Provost to Royal Governor of South Carolina By Walter Stitt Robinson". Jeez, Dormskirk, you are always telling me the importance of references, and when I provide them you either don't look properly or dismiss them! I'm disappointed we cannot use the Wiki link to the 3rd Earl of Aberdeen. I suppose this has to be what Meg means about 'significant' ancestors... All this is bringing me down again. Wikipedia should come with a health warning, like a packet of cigarettes. Addictive, but bad for you. Arbil44 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have now added the reference to Robinson. My point is that we have not actually seen page 130 (or I have not) - we have only seen an index which refers to page 130. Apologies if I seem pedantic but I want to apply the wikipedia guidelines correctly. This is not the only page I edit and I have a reputation to protect! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I am mystified - it is there - here:,+countess+of+dalhousie&source=bl&ots=SATLOkJgrw&sig=ACfU3U1bqsL7AEHwao7gNhNzaxkQOiFniQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4k4jT7vHlAhUBYsAKHW6UBjkQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Elizabeth%20Glen%2C%20countess%20of%20dalhousie&f=false - doesn't matter how hard I try, you still have to press 'next' to the second of the two references. Arbil44 (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The second of the two references is not doing anything for me when I press it. (I am guessing but it may be because you carried out the search on your machine and the software is not allowing it to be recreated on my machine). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
One final try. I cleared the search criteria and was left with just page 130. Will this work?,+countess+of+dalhousie&source=bl&ots=SATLOkJgrw&sig=ACfU3U1bqsL7AEHwao7gNhNzaxkQOiFniQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4k4jT7vHlAhUBYsAKHW6UBjkQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
No, but don't worry about it. I inserted the citation some time ago on the basis that at least you had seen the actual page. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I've nailed the bastard down here! Please include the link:,+Dr+Thomas+Glen&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvu9m4qfvlAhXPX8AKHbXgB7YQ6AEIKzAA#v=onepage&q=This%20last%20item%20included%20%C2%A3100%20to%20his%20brother%2C%20Dr%20Thomas%20Glen&f=false Arbil44 (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Done...and well done!! Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Link 5 isn’t such a good link, with less to say than any other I’ve found, so could it be replaced with this? (his mother was a staunch Jacobite):
Done. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
(Since the 11 year old JG would have been present, with his mother, when the palace was set on fire, could this be included? Who knows, he might even have tried to put out the fire, or look after his four sisters). Linlithgow, always a staunch Jacobite stronghold, was set ablaze by Government forces in 1746. Elizabeth Gordon tried to save it from destruction but it has lain a ruin ever since.
This is more on Elizabeth Glen which is off topic. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing further, sadly, on JG - I wish I had - unless Meg comes up with something I have not found, or even Robert Balfour, but the latter is unlikely as I think he has exhausted his resources now. Arbil44 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Gordons of Ellon continuedEdit

Stop Press - Wikipedi has actually been helpful to me! Look, I have a link to James Gordon's father at long last, from his nephew's page. Shame it isn't a live online link 'cos I'd love to have a look. "Edward J. Davies, "The Balfours of Balbirnie and Whittingehame", The Scottish Genealogist, 60(2013):84-90." Wonders will never cease. I shall have to investigate this more closely on Google Books. Could you please insert Robert Balfour's dates too and I wish the hyphen was uniform with the two Lieutenant Generals. Arbil44 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
All done. Dormskirk (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Dormskirk for the edits done. Now I seriously need help - I really really want to see this book "The Balfours of Balbirnie and Whittingehame", The Scottish Genealogist, by Edward J. Davies. On the following link, fourth one down, is a pdf. document which I thought would be 'IT', but it turns out to be the index - they are all listed there - all the Gordons I need to look into. I could learn so much, but the index is of no use to me. Is there any way - Wayback Machine (which I don't know how to use once in it)? Anything at all? Would your superior IT skills find this book for me to read? It's not on HathiTrust, so probably not Google Books either. I honestly don't want to have to buy another book right now. Please can you - will you help me? 4th one down:,+The+Scottish+Genealogist,+Edward+J.+Davies&safe=active&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNRVTyD5j8VKhEsn16iY_Zf53B5YcA:1574286786609&ei=wrXVXeDkJO-M1fAPkpiL6AI&start=0&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjgzcKl4_nlAhVvRhUIHRLMAi04ChDy0wN6BAgLEC8&biw=981&bih=552 Arbil44 (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I can get to the index but am unable get any furher than that. Sorry! Dormskirk (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Right, I really have a problem now. It's not on Google books, nor HathiTrust, nor in my library system, nor, damn it, for sale either (neither in the UK nor the US). Are you able to tell me the username of the person who put up that link to the book? If they are emailable perhaps they can advise me? Later: This is seriously crazy. The book is linked a dozen times all over Wikipedia, yet it is totally unavailable. Who was the first person to set this ludicrous paper trail and should they be shot? Arbil44 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Desperate measures - emailed Robert Balfour to ask him if he has it. Arbil44 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dormskirk – I may be a moron who cannot get an internal link formatted correctly, and therefore worthy of instant banning [yes, that really really did hurt], but my determination to get where I need to be is usually off the scale. I certainly never take ‘no’ for an answer. I am, therefore, now in possession of The Balfours of Balbirnie and Whittingehame, The Scottish Genealogist, by Edward J. Davies, published in 2013, which is obtainable, for a small fee, from It tells me nothing new :-( However, it confirms that everything on JG’s page is correct, which is very comforting indeed. I spoke to a very helpful chap at the Genealogy society in Edinburgh and I’m going to talk to him again to find out what other publication may help me more. He mentioned something, which I dismissed, saying, “No, no, no, I only want The Balfours of Balbirnie”!

Parentage of Mary Gordon

Mary Gordon married John Balfour in 1771 and the record of their marriage in the Markinch parish registers describes Mary as “daughter of the late Charles Gordon of Ellon Esqr in the Parish of Bunkle”.5 Bunkle and Preston was a parish in Berwickshire, and the marriage proclamation was also recorded in the registers there, when Mary was described as “Miss Mary Gordon in this Parish”.6 Blanerne, which was in the parish of Bunkle and Preston, was a property of the Lumsdaine family, of which John Balfour’s paternal grandmother was a member.7 Bulloch notes that Mary Gordon’s sister Agnes was married to John Lumsdaine of Blanerne.8 Despite the statement in the marriage entry in the Markinch registers, there does not seem to be anything else to support the father of Mary Gordon being called Charles, and there is reason to think that Mary was in fact a daughter of James Gordon of Ellon in Aberdeenshire and Elizabeth Glen, as has been stated in the past.9 It is clear from their wills that Mary Gordon, wife of John Balfour, was a sister of Lieutenant-General Andrew Gordon, Lieutenant-Governor of the Island of Jersey, who died in 1806, and that they had a sister called Margaret who married Hugh Henry Mitchell of Dublin. Mary’s will mentions “the deceased Mrs Gordon of Ellon my Mother”.10 James Gordon of Ellon and his wife Elizabeth Glen (of whom the latter died at Edinburgh on 7 March 1792) had a son Lieutenant-General Andrew Gordon,11 and there does not seem to be any Andrew Gordon this could be other than the Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey.12 Coupled with apparently independent later statements in various published works that the wife of John Balfour and the wife of Hugh Henry Mitchell were daughters of James Gordon of Ellon,13 this supports the conclusion that Mary Gordon, wife of John Balfour, was a daughter of James Gordon and Elizabeth Glen. James Gordon, the husband of Elizabeth Glen, had died in 1749, many years before the marriage of Mary Gordon and John Balfour.14 Elizabeth was a sister of James Glen, governor of South Carolina.15 One of the witnesses at the baptism in 1731 of Elizabeth, daughter of James Gordon and Elizabeth Glen, was James Glen of Longcroft,16 and the probate records of James Gordon of Ellon mention James Glen, governor of South Carolina.17 The will of James Glen mentions “the Family of my Sister Mrs Gordon” and “my Nephew Captain James Gordon her eldest Son”.18

So, JG’s father died in 1749 (needs correcting). And JG was the eldest son, but not the eldest child. Not a lot of mind-blowing information to be gleaned then! But at least I am no longer fretting at being unable to find the book! Arbil44 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Good. But we already say James Gordon of Ellon died in 1749 (both under "early life" and "relations" in the infobox) or am I being thick? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. I see - you have already sorted it. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I got there moments before you! Is there some way of making it clear how the book can be obtained? Honestly, last night was frustrating to put it very very mildly. Arbil44 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you could start a "Bibliography" section after "References". Then list the book and state afterwards "(available from....)". Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Done, but under Further Reading. Hope that's OK. Arbil44 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Robert Balfour went to see his mother yesterday - to see if she had the Balfour book (which I obtained yesterday) and to ask if she could remember more about the Gordon story (she could only confirm what we know already). Anyway, Robert took a photograph of a portrait of Mary Gordon, sister of JG and mother of Lt.Gen. Robert Balfour. The image is well outside copyright, having been painted in approximately the 1790s. They don't know who the artist is, other than an Italian portrait painter. They would be happy to see it on both the JG page and also the Robert Balfour page. I don't want to try uploading it until I know if you will accept this Dormskirk? If you do, could you give me a link to the easy upload page? I never seem to be able to find it without searching for hours. Arbil44 (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi - The link is here: I am not a copyright expert but I would have thought a portrait from the 1790s should be fine from a copyright perspective. The only issue would be whether such a portrait is off-topic. If I were an uninitiated reader to wikipedia I might be irritated to see a portrait of some relative when what I really want to see was a portrait of the subject. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Rest assured, if I had an image of JG I'd be presenting it to you, but in the absence of such, what shall we do? Mary was a sister and a mother to two people with Wikipedia pages. Here is Robert Manners' father's page [3] with an image of his wife there, so it is not unheard of to have images that are available in the absence of ones which are not! I need to know your decision before going for upload though - it makes me very nervous! Arbil44 (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi - It is not my decision to make (I am not aware of any firm guidance on this). But I think that, if you go ahead, the chances of another editor removing it from either article are pretty small. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dormskirk. I've uploaded (thanks for the easy link, that saved me hours)! Would you mind putting the image on the pages? I don't know what kind of caption you would want, so I've given full details which may be too much. Could we please give acknowledgement to Robert Balfour, Lord Lieutenant of Fife - not that he has asked for that - I just think it courteous. Arbil44 (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. I will let you adjust the wording as you see fit. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Dormskirk - on both pages. The caption explains all, so I think it is fine - I was worried that you might think it too much, so it can stay as is. Anyway, all hell breaks loose if I try to change a caption after an image (with built in caption) is uploaded. I don't want to even try. Arbil44 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've just put an image on the Solomon Islands page - changed the caption - and all hell has broken loose. Please will you fix (I took the first five words off the caption and now the image does not show up). Within nano seconds someone had removed it. Why do people do that rather than be kind, help, and correct my mistake (whatever the mistake might have been)? Arbil44 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. What would I do without you?! Even when I try I get into a mess! Arbil44 (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Gordons under arms; a biographical muster roll of officers named Gordon in the navies and armies of Britain, Europe, America and the Jacobite risings by Skelton, Constance Oliver, Mrs; Bulloch, John MalcolmEdit

p. 162 - 163 Publication date 1912 (so, outside of copyright restrictions)

I've heard back from that nice guy in Edinburgh!

1) We now know that JG wasn’t married and I have removed the suggestion he might have been from his page.

2) We also know, from Samuel Graham’s Memoirs, that Lady Asgill’s letter did, indeed, reach JG before he died. JG handed that letter over to Samuel Graham, with huge apologies for not having been well enough to reply. He had been touched by Lady Asgill’s fulsome expressions of gratitude for all he had done for her son, and wanted those sentiments returned to her verbally, by Samuel Graham, which he did, once back in Britain. So, this publication is wrong on the matter of the letter.

3) This publication incorrectly records the Morris House as being at Kingbridge – it wasn’t, it was Kingsbridge so I have inserted (sic). I have also added ‘Kingsbridge’ on the page itself, so that this is clear.

4) Given that I cannot do more quotes (other than Asgill’s letter) please will you sort the wood from the trees as to what, and where, the following information can be used? It was a terrible job copy-typing (and I have lost all the italicising I did in Word as well now it is on this Wikipedia page). I have emboldened the information I think we should add to the page.

5) But what does a writership in the H.E.I.C mean? Google doesn’t help me much – the closest I can suggest is “East India company” but what would the ‘H’ stand for? I've just found something on Google, but my firewall will not allow me to access it - however, it rather looks like H.E.I.C. may refer to "Records of the East India College, Haileybury, & other institutions" and the snippet I saw mentioned a "writership". Is it acceptable to draw that conclusion?

6) I cannot go through this again for his brother’s page. However, I do think this link, direct to his brother’s entry p.46-47 should be put on his brother’s page too.

7) A word search on the above link for ‘Ellon’ brings up a lot more information and I do think that this fact should somehow be mentioned.

Quote from the above book:

712. James. 1761, Oct.21, Capt., 115th Ft. (W.O. notifications, P.R.O.). 1763, h.p. on reduction. 1777, org. 29, Bt. Maj.; Dec. 16 or 1778, Jul. 25, Maj., 80th Ft. (ibid.; L.G.). Served in America, taken prisoner. 1780, member of Court Martial which tried Lt. Col. Thomas, accused at New York of libelling Col. Cosmo Gordon, 384. 1782, F eb. 5, signed warrants for subsistence of British and German prisoners in Pennsylvania (Roy. Inst. Papers, Hist. MSS. Com., II. 395). 1782, May 27 and Jun. 3, wrote from Lancaster to Sir Guy Carleton and to the Chevalier de la Luzerne, touching Capt. Asgill, who was seized by the Americans as a sacrifice for the defeat of Huddy. 1783, Feb. 19, Bt. Lt. Col., further correspondence; Asgill was released through Gordon’s instrumentality, his mother wrote a letter of thanks which did not reach New York until after his death (A.L., 1763 – 84; Spencer Papers, Hist. MSS. Com., p.20; S.M., vol. 45, p. 670).

Elder son of James, II. of Ellon (d. 1749) and Elizabeth Glen; succ. his father 1750; sold estate to Lord Aberdeen, 1752, in which year he petitioned for a writership in the H.E.I.C.; . d. unm. 1783, at Morris House, Kingbridge (sic), near New York (S.M., vol.45, p. 670; J.M. Bulloch in Aberdeen Free Press, 1903; Huntly Express, 1906, Dec. 7, 1908, May 15). Brother of Andrew, 246. Arbil44 (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi - There is no reason why you cannot make these edits yourself as you are not related to James Gordon and do not have a conflict of interest. Remember that you are writing for the reader so the information needs to be notable and not off-topic. Above all remember that all information should be properly cited with a proper citation template, not a bare url. By the way H.E.I.C. stands for Honourable East India Company. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, but please will you help me with links - they are the things which give me the biggest nightmare. I'll put them in <><> but I never know what to do at the end of the page, and I will not know how to reference Samuel Graham's memoirs which is already linked. I'll do my best Dormskirk, but please don't get cross with me if I get something wrong. Would you also remember how ancient I am and I am not part of the computer whizz kid generation. Would you not at least deal with JG's brother? That is not a page I created, but let's get a link to this publication on there too? Arbil44 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added the book to Andrew Gordon's page (I know you did not start that article: I did!). And I have converted a bare url for you on JG's page so you can see what it should look like. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Which page in Samuel Graham's memoir refers to Lady Asgill’s fulsome expressions of gratitude? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that help, but should some link to Graham's Memoirs be added too? What a small world Wikipedia is. I take an interest in JG only to discover you were interested in his brother, presumably long ago! I'm involved with Asgill / Mary Ann, and when General Manners gets mentioned, Opera Hat pipes up that he was the one to create Manners' page! It is as if I have spies watching from every corner of the universe! We should all meet up instead of being strangers! Arbil44 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Since I no longer have Graham's book I trust you will give me time. I shall have to search for that information on Google Books. Please don't delete before I have the answer. Arbil44 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
You should really add the citations as you go along. I will not delete it for now but another editor might and would be correct in doing so. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought that the fact that the book is already referenced was sufficient. But was this quick enough? [4]. It even quotes Lady Asgill's letter in full. You are becoming quite the stern Head Master Dormskirk - have you been in cahoots with Cordless Larry? Do you not know that I really DO try to DO my best, however inadequate my best may be. Arbil44 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Very quick - I am impressed! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I have tried half a dozen times, or more, to include this link after mention of Robert Balfour, LLoF, on the image of Mary (as you will see on the edits page) but I cannot get it right. Please will you include it? Arbil44 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I was looking to see if there was a Wikipedia page for General Samuel Graham, but there isn't. Since you have created so many military pages, would he not interest you too? I was also looking to see if there was more about him than his military Memoirs (which give a very good account of the Revolutionary war) and there is - these diaries [5] Personally I like 'back stories' - which are usually much more colourful than the bare military facts. I am not going to do this myself because I have come to the conclusion that trying to cope with the IT aspects on here is a battle I will never win, and I don't want to put myself through any more of it. If you do take up this suggestion, please link it to the paragraph I wrote yesterday about him being at Gordon's death bed. Gordon and Graham were the closest of friends. Dormskirk, I am going stir-crazy that the Journal will be out within days from now and still they are not publicising it. This wait is completely doing my head in. Arbil44 (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. I might do a bit more on it when I have more time. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Very quick - I am impressed too! If you scroll up to the top of the link to Graham's Memoirs you will see there is a picture of him on the front cover (very Nelsonesque). Could you take a screenshot? The book was published in something like the 1860s-1880s, so is well outside copyright to be able to use that image. Thank you for doing this so fast! I'm pleased he has a page now. Arbil44 (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Yes, he clearly is notable in his own right. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Blimey, that really really really was quick. I barely had time to switch pages! Thank you once more. An edit clash prevented me from getting in first! Arbil44 (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Dormskirk. The copyright holder of an image of Day's Tavern, Chatham, NJ has just uploaded a file [[File: Day tavern jpg[thumb|]] to Wiki Commmons. I cannot find it. Could you please find it and put it securely at the very end of my Userpage please? I cannot use it on the Asgill page until I can give a link to the Journal. I don't want WikiCommons deleting it because it hasn't been applied to a page, hence this request. It will need a new caption when the time comes. Thank you very much in advance!Arbil44 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Finally found it. Done. Arbil44 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You are getting quite an expert on this stuff now. Well done! Dormskirk (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Dormskirk. You cannot imagine how much those words mean to me. I have been trying so hard. Please will you check my userpage to see if what I have done there has made this 'oven ready' for the Asgill page (if not, please change), once I know I can put a link to it on my userpage. The page numbers given refer to Timothy Day's Tavern only (the entire Journal covers The Asgill Affair. I am terribly upset by the delay and just wish I could get my final things done. Please understand that the journal cannot be digitised for legal reasons. Arbil44 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Separately, please see Mary Ann's talk page. I think my question to Nthep is totally unnecessary. My question to you is this - we now have an image of Linlithgow showing Mrs Glen Gordon chastising the people who set the palace on fire. Is there any reason why this cannot go on JG's page? If the answer is 'no, it cannot go on his page' please will you delete the entire query to Nthep and I will forget about it. Arbil44 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
And, finally, I have been given a link to Mrs Glen Gordon's marriage entry, which shows she got married in Linlithgow - meaning the chances of JG being born there are high - she probably lived there before getting married, as I had already thought. I won't go as far as saying that, of course, but can I give that information with a link to this, sent to me by my family historian? "Elizabeth Glen married (James Gordon of Ellon) in 1730 at Linlithgow, West Lothian, Scotland" I can't help the fact that James Gordon of Ellon isn't mentioned! I didn't write the parish records! If this is a non-starter too I will also forget this one. The said family historian didn't, as it happens, have any further information. I was mistakenly thinking she had. I am just trying to wrap everything up so that I can draw a line under Wikipedia a soon as I get a bloody link! Arbil44 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi - Your user page looks fine. Is there is no rule against the image of Linlithgow showing Mrs Glen appearing on JG's page: the only issue is whether it is off-topic and that is a matter of opinion. I will leave you to delete the query to Nthep as there is no reason why you cannot do it yourself given your new skills! On the final matter, a family search link would not qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS...sorry!
Do you have any idea why the image has been rejected, when it is on Google Books and the image created in 1839? Plus I have been in touch with Bruce Jamieson who has also given his permission, which wasn't really even needed.,_under_the_command_of_Lieutenant_General_((Henry_Hawley)),_were_pursuing_Jacobites_in_the_area.jpg#Licensing What on earth have I done wrong now? Arbil44 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Because you did not provide a template asserting that it is in the public domain. I have inserted a licence for you. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
My new-found skills are bult on sand and can go wrong any minute. Thanks for sorting the image issue. I've uploaded and tried to put the first two images in a <galery>; removed all the [[]], but the images didn't show up at all then. Reverted and now there is no galery. Actually, I think it is probably OK without a gallery. Change if you think best. Also, as usual, my [1] link is wrong at the bottom (I haven't discovered how to do that yet - sorry). I guess someone will remove, but let's see how long it lasts. Thanks for all your help Dormskirk. Arbil44 (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Superb, except you've got the wrong book! You have the one I purchased, written last month, which isn't on google books - it should be "Linlithgow Through Time". You have the author right though! Bruce Jamieson sent me, for free yesterday, a digital version of the one I bought, which might have saved me £11 had I contacted him sooner. It was annoying to get it for free after I had purchased it! Arbil44 (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Let me be clear - I'm not in the least bit upset that you said 'no' to the marriage entry, but I do want to make sure you know that the IGI is the bible for b.m.d. records! I think you thought I gave you a link to, which I can well believe would not be acceptable. See here: (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC) _FamilySearch_Historical_Records Arbil44 (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Book sorted. WP:RS says articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I am not clear whether IGI is a publisher source. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
To answer your query on the edit page, I was trying to move down the page, very slightly, the Morris House and JG's bedroom, so that the top edge of the Morris House aligned with Death and Legacy. I was nervous to ask for more help, so left it. Arbil44 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. Your edit produced the message "  &nbsp" which I am sure was not your intention. I suggest you don't worry about alignment as we write articles for our readers and our readers will have a multitude of different monitor sizes (anything from mobile phones to widescreen monitors). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, point taken. I'm a neat-freak and the misalignment annoys me! Anyway, soon you will discover just how important "  &nbsp" will be! I took beginner lessons in how to create spaces! And while on the subject there will be a "=" which everyone will try to amend to a "-", but the first is correct! Arbil44 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Journal of Lancaster county’s HistoricaL society VOL. 120, NO. 3  WINTER 2019Edit

Dormskirk, are you online? I've been waiting for a link which isn't going to arrive. None of the individual editions of the Journal are itemised. Will you be able to ensure I get things right if I go ahead now? Arbil44 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I've just heard from the Editor a couple of minutes ago, saying "Still we are on time. I expect that books will be mailing this week." So, I've compromised by doing a couple of edits on Agill's page, but will wait until the end of this week before doing the "quote" from the Journal on JG's page. I think that is a fair compromise, isn't it? Signed off by "cat on a hot tin roof"! Arbil44 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. I will keep an eye for anything serious! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You know what I'm like with links! I think I haven't got them completely right! I know you will get them as they should be. I've just put the image on and changed the wording to "has now been published", so nothing major yet. The quote will be on the JG page...Arbil44 (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits Dormskirk, but you have removed the link to how to obtain a copy - Also, those page numbers must come off. They relate to the image only, in the journal, and are very misleading. It makes it look as though the journal is only 3 pages long! They were not there when I edited - so how have they materialised? Arbil44 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies. I see you have 'embeded' the link. My stupidity I'm afraid. However, I don't feel comfortable with page numbers. The entire journal is about Asgill. The page numbers refer to the image only. Any way round this? Arbil44 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I have removed the page numbers. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Dormskirk. I may, eventually, be able to give a better link, but for now that email address will reach the right person. Mike says that the publicity/marketing is out of his hands and he doesn't know when better links will be available. Links can be changed, if need be, later, but I am just too impatient to get on with it all for now. There is literally only one other thing I would like to do on the Asgill page, if I am allowed to, and that is this quote from Washington? What do you think? After this "His letter was also sent to the editor of the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine.[13]" insert the following quote:

{{quote|text=it is well known, that when one side only of a Story is heard, and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it, insensibly – George Washington Arbil44 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand this. If you insert the quote where I think you want to insert it, then it breaks up the powerful flow of the narrative about Asgill's claims. Also the Washington quote does not even mention Asgill so don't see its relevance. I really suggest we leave the article alone now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
No, the quote doesn't mention Asgill by name - but the words Washington wrote are very pertinent. For 233 years there has been only "one side only of a story". It is quoted in History Today and again in the Journal, but if you think it is best left, then OK. Or, alternatively, is there a better place for it, if you would reconsider? Arbil44 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I think I understand what you are saying but it was not immediately obvious to me and may not be obvious to the average reader. Also if Washington was not referring to Asgill (which he was not) I really think it would be misleading to quote him in the context of an article about Asgill (i.e. you would be quoting out of context). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I bow to your opinion Dormskirk. Perhaps you, and the average reader, have not fully appreciated that Washington branded Asgill a cad and a liar, and this is all that history has to say about Asgill. The Journal has rectified this well and truly. Only Washington's version has been known up to now. But I am not going to make a fuss, don't worry! At least the quote is in the Journal, so that's what really matters. Arbil44 (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. And I am sure it will be well-presented in the journal which will be able to give much more context than this short article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dormskirk, I’ve just done my final edit, for some time anyway. It was perfect, except for the link to the journal – that just had to spoil it didn’t it. It was an incredible feeling honouring a dead man’s wishes, which were denied him ever since 1786 (if only I had had the patience to wait until 20th December). Very emotional actually! All that is left are those Mansel letters – could you possibly ping Nthep (on the MA talk page) if he doesn’t eventually reply there? I’ve just tried a different tack to find the NZ chap, but no idea if that will work. I’ll be back, much later on by the look of things, once JG’s grave marker is installed at Trinity. I never imagined, in a million years, that I would become addicted to Wikipedia – but the need to be here daily for four months has done that! I feel bereft to have finally finished! IT-wise, I did progress just a little, but not enough unfortunately. I’ve only just noticed that Robert Manners was in James Gordon’s regiment (a Major in the 80th Foot on 28 December 1782). How strange, since he was not a Scot, but presumably he was not sent to America at the end of 1782? That page was created by Opera hat, so I presume he would have mentioned it! Thank you for all the massive amount of help you have given me. Thank you for holding my hand and watching my back too! Arbil44 (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The business of Manners being in the 80th has been bothering me all day, so I downloaded Opera hat's source, the London Gazette. It is rather poor quality print, and I am wondering whether this is a genuine error, because it seriously does not make sense. The 80th were disbanded in 1783. This is a copy of the text: "86th Regiment of Foot, Captain Robert Manners, of the 86th Regiment, to be Major, vice William Maxwell." So it looks as though "86th" has been mistranscribed as "80th" doesn't it? I know how Wikipedia requires everything to be correct (!) so may I leave this in your hands to sort out? Arbil44 (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I am delighted for you that the journal has been successfully published and I am very pleased to have helped with your work here. I am not sure of the correct position on 86th / 80th Foot myself so will leave it to the experts! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Could you ping Opera hat please Dormskirk? I am sure that this is a genuine mistranscription because it would be absolutely crazy to appoint an Englishman to a Scottish regiment almost days before it was disbanded! They surely wouldn't have sent him to America when everybody was being repatriated (by James Gordon) in the opposite diredtion! I am sure Opera hat will sort this out if he is made aware...thanks also for the corrections you did on my edit today! Arbil44 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
80th Foot is correct. See the 1783 Army List here: if you click on "preview an image of this record" it is page 152 of 278. Opera hat (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I've got another source which I can use to add to the Manners article but I probably won't be able to do it tonight. Opera hat (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Opera hat. I am completely gobsmacked! When I C&Ped direct from the London Gazette (try it yourself) it came out very clearly as "86th Regiment of Foot". Do you have any idea why Manners would join a Scottish regiment on the eve of its disbandment (1783 at sea /1783 disbanded in Scotland)? Did they post him off to America at the end of 1782? If so, he could have waved at Asgill crossing the Atlantic in the opposite direction (neither of them would have known Mary Ann at that time, she was only 2)! I see he is listed right under James Gordon - what a coincidence. Is there even the slightest chance that this is a different Robert Manners? - also, sorry, but I don't understand what the crossing out means? I'm simply interested, not just in this situation, but also the man himself, as you know. Thank you for looking into it. Arbil44 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your new link Opera hat. I see that you have well and truly confirmed that the London Gazette stated, as you said - the 80th. I hope you understand that I was simply bemused by this, and had thought it was a genuine mistranscription. Anyway, now we know! Arbil44 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I still need to add details of his later service in the French Revolutionary Wars. As to why he would have joined the 80th: I assume it would be just to gain the step in rank and not with any expectation of his actually serving with the regiment. As a half-pay major he would have been eligible to be promoted lieutenant-colonel of the 84th in 1784, whereas if he was still only a captain he would not. The 84th was also disbanded shortly after he joined it, but as he was then a lieutenant-colonel he was of sufficient rank to command a company in the Guards. All of these regimental ranks up to lieutenant-colonel could be purchased, but the higher general officer ranks were gained strictly by seniority based on when an officer was promoted colonel. A company in the Guards pretty much guaranteed grant of brevet rank as a colonel and consequent promotion through seniority to full general if the officer lived long enough (as Manners did). On the crossings-out: those microfilms in the National Archives are from the War Office's own copies of the annual Army List, and are copiously annotated with any deaths or promotions that occur which would need updating in next year's edition. Opera hat (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations. So, what you are saying is that Manners was the knell of death for any regiment he joined!! I will assume, then, that Gordon and Manners never knew one another. But I have asked Don Hagist of JAR if he happens to know anything more about Manners. If I ever manage to link the Mansel letters, you will be able to see one of the letters Manners wrote to his son Herbert. If you are on email I could send those 21 letters to you. Would you like to see them? They are domestic not political. Arbil44 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, another query...I have Manners recorded as a grandson of the Duke of Rutland on the Mary Ann page, and you have "his cousin the Duke of Rutland"! You may well be right on this too, but would you clarify before I change it on the MA page? Arbil44 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Both are correct. He was grandson of the second Duke and first cousin once removed of the fourth Duke. Opera hat (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Opera hat - the Manners article is fascinating now - it was quite boring previously. I really enjoyed reading it. Did Asgill serve with Manners in the Flanders campaigns - I'd love to know if they knew one another other than when they were both Equerries. Now, this is a question I would like answered please, by both you and also Dormskirk. If I change Asgill's page to read Colonel-Commandant will the wrath of God rain down on me? The way it is on Asgill's page is upsetting to me (sorry, but that is how strongly I feel on the matter!) but I dared not change it. However, since Opera hat has been working away on the Manners page to such an extent in the past days, could I not mirror what is there, which is Colonel-Commandant too? I shall also add "2nd" to the Duke of Rutland as well. By the way Dormskirk, I hardly had any sleep last night because I stumbled across an 18-year-old Word document I had completely forgotten I had - 64 pages of copied emails I had had in 2002 with the chap in NZ I need to find again now. It is all quite rivetting and I stayed up until the small hours reading it - and I must now get back to finishing the task. Arbil44 (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

A reply in from Don Hagist of JAR. Let me know if I should upload his attachments? "To your question about Robert Manners, the muster rolls of the 80th Regiment confirm that he never came to America. Attached are the three rolls that mention him, from the regiment's last two rolls prepared in America and their final roll prepared in Great Britain in March 1784. You'll see Manners listed at the top among the officers, in all cases 'absent by leave', which was not unusual. He was initially assigned to the colonel's company of the regiment (these rolls are by company, so I've sent only those for the companies he was in), and then nominally took command of James Gordon's company when that officer died - but that was just a 'paper' command, as he never joined the regiment in America." I like getting to the end of a story - then it feels complete. Arbil44 (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Since you have changed the Manners' page regarding the "Colonel-Commandant" to lower case I will deduce from that your reply to my question. However, you may recall that Cinderella157 ruled Colonel of the Regiment (of the 30th etc.) should be capitalised (also Third Major etc.). Also, not sure if this "the officers giving their parole" is what you meant? Should "giving" read "given"? Sorry, I'm being pedantic aren't I?! Arbil44 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid addressing the capitalisation question, as I tend to think arguments are pretty pointless with people who feel strongly about a subject. But if I have to: Cinderella157 has no more authority than you or I do to overrule Wikipedia guidelines, and my interpretation of MOS:JOBTITLES is that lower case should be used for colonels of regiments.
"Given" would definitely be wrong, unless you were to rephrase it to "The officers having given their parole, the garrison returned..." and without reading the terms of capitulation I wouldn't know if that condition was applied. The present participle is used in sentences in the past tense to suggest a continuing state (in this case, the officers' parole). Cf. the tongue-twister "She stood at the step of Burgess's fish-sauce shop, mimicking his hiccuping and welcoming him in" which uses the same form. Opera hat (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Opera hat - me - argumentative! Never! I don't think I have been with you though have I? Oh, yes, when you changed Asgill's wife's name; his place of death, and de-capitalised on the Asgill page! Yes, we have different views on capitalisation, but I intend to leave things as they are regarding my specific query. I am not looking for more trouble! I much prefer to get along with people and I welcome your humourous tongue-twister explanation! I wish there was much more humour in Wikipedia communications personally. I think your efforts on the Manners page were worth it - it is now really interesting. I received my copies of the Journal today - and, who knows, the publication may attract more views of the Asgill, Gordon, Mary Ann and Manners pages. Let's hope so!
The Journal of Lancaster county’s Historical society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019
Arbil44 (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I C&Pd the following from the Manners page on to the Asgill page! Why doesn't it show up Dormskirk?

|allegiance=   Great Britain|serviceyears= Arbil44 (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the infobox type from "person" to "officeholder" so the military parameters will now show. Dormskirk (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I like a bit of colour, so could you add the bright red logo alongside the service branch, as on the Manners page? Also, you haven't include the Irish Uprising and there were so many Flanders campaigns, should that be itemised? Arbil44 (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Done! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Very pretty! Thank you. Good news today - I am to be interviewed by a US newspaper next week! Let's hope it is the first domino to fall! Arbil44 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Does it matter that Asgill was only in Fladers late 93 to late 94? Arbil44 (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The dates should be that of the campaign not the individual. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)}
I do like the splashes of colour, so could you possibly add them to JG's page too? And ther's a reference on Asgill's page which I nearly got right, but not quite. Arbil44 (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. You should note however that there is a move away from these icons (see WP:ICON) so you may find they are removed at some point in the future. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. You make it all look so easy! I think that is a retrograde step - they are visually pleasing and say it all in colour! Oh well, it wont be the first time something is removed, now will it! Arbil44 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I apologise Dormskirk, I have been on a mission today to get JG's references up to 30 and Asgill's to 70, which I have now done. But I just don't know how to get them right, so, please, will you? Arbil44 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
All sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Dormskirk - how do I merge 3 links on my userpage - all to the Vanderpoel book - but showing up as three separate links? Hate having to crawl back for assistance. Please either tell me or please fix! Arbil44 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorted. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I've just been sent the link to purchasing the Journal - [6]- I thought it would never come. I've just put the link on my userpage and it hasn't turned out as it did before. No idea what I've done wrong, since I just replaced the URL to the one there before. May I ask you to get this link on both the Asgill and Gordon pages too please Dormskirk? Thank you. Arbil44 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorted. I have included under further reading as well but this may be over the top. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure someone will remove that Dormskirk! Someone did when the History Today article was in further reading too! But OTT is needed as a salve to the terrible news about Mary Ann being wiped from history. I have just emailed the church to find out what on earth has happened. Thank you, as always, for coming to my rescue! You always help me with such kindness. Arbil44 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Have uploaded two images to the Robert Manners page, and I am sure I have done it correctly - but it seems not. No idea where I have gone wrong...Arbil44 (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Dormskirk - I am basically done now, apart from waiting for copyright permission (I hope) to show a map of Timothy Day's Tavern. However, I have a couple of 'niggles' which, possibly, you may be able to help with? Firstly, the Journal shows that Washington wanted to portray himself as having been kind and considerate to Asgill throughout his ordeal (as demonstrated in his Washington's Papers published in the New Haven Gazette) but goes on to show that there was one letter he did not include in that bundle. That one letter demonstrates that he was not entirely proud of himself and didn't want that letter included (or his aides didn't - who knows). For 233 years Asgill's reputation, therefore, has been that of a cad and a liar, basically because he was denied the 'right of reply', four years later, in that same newspaper. For this reason I think there should be a link to the Journal on this page - however, there does not appear to be a "Further Reading" section - rather, a list of Biographies. Could you give me your views on this and, if you think it appropriate, put a link to the Journal there? I have not read that article, but imagine it is a very complimentary piece on Washington throughout. There are other 'niggles'... but let's deal with this first please. Arbil44 (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you are on quite difficult ground there. The George Washington article is a "top importance" article for a whole series of wikiprojects and has already been assessed as good i.e. it is well written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated. There has been so much written about Washington generally that the further reading section and the external links section have been strictly limited to comprehensive biographies. I think that putting a link to your article may stir up some adverse reaction on the basis that (i) your article is not entirely about Washington (ii) it does not set out to fully cover Washington's life and (iii) you are trying to make a point about Asgill's reputation, in which WP:SOAPBOX would apply. In summary you could be opening a hornet's nest. But just my thoughts. Dormskirk (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
So, the Miegs and Dana censorship continues to this day - who knew! [7] Arbil44 (talk) 11:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It isn't 'my' article Dormskirk. It is in collaboration with Martha Abel, an American, who did a vast amount of research for the Journal and is, as you know, the co-author. She was excited by the find I mentioned above, because she, like me, wanted to find the truth and set the record straight. This LancasterHistory has done and it is the 'new and definitive' version of the Asgill Affair, however inconvenient that may be. I am only mentioned because I am credited with bringing 'the letter' (the centrepiece) to Lancaster; a re-print of the 'History Today' article is included, and I wrote another small section, along with discovering the 'prison' was Timothy Day's Tavern. So, you see, it is definitely a collaboration across the pond in a search for the truth. I only wish for my part in this to be absolutely clear - nothing more. I can see there will be resistance to a new version of history, although it has already been described as the best thing ever to come out of LancasterHistory - and that by American readers themselves. I cannot sit by and leave your comment undefented I am afraid, since the implications are pretty damning of me personally. The Editor, Martha and I are only interested in the truth. The truth is not always as people want it to be. Arbil44 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Apologies if I caused any offence. I was only making the point you had put a lot of effort into exposing the truth and I would hate someone to try and come up with a contrary view: believe me I have seen plenty of that on wikipedia. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
If you wanted the add something into the article on George Washington you would have to give it context. A link without context would be removed. I think you would need to expand the article (which is indeed very complementary about him as you anticipated) and in the section on "Southern theater and Yorktown" you would need to add something about the poor treatment of the British prisoners (citing Asgill as an example). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

All I wanted to do was put a link to the LancasterHistory Journal on that page in order for a wider audience to know there was something new for the first time in over two centuries, so readers would be able to make up their own minds. However, without a 'Further Reading' section there is nothing I can do. I put news of the Journal on a FB page called 'The Revolutionary War Forum' (or something like that). I thought they were historians interested in every new revelation, since new revelations must be thin on the ground by now. I was subjected to such abuse I had deleted the entire thread within a day. They weren't historians at all - they were banditi! If this is how people react here too (which I had thought was all about highly educated people being interested in new 'finds'), well, blow them, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"! Never mind my other niggle (having this [8] deleted without explanation or notification) which rather reinforces my point. Arbil44 (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. My concern is that if you start adding material to the George Washington article (even a new further reading section with just one item) you will see more "banditi" come over the hill than either of us ever seen before! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but you will have to forgive me for quoting you - "it is well written, verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated". Ho, hum...Happy New Year! Arbil44 (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
yes, indeed. The well-written bits include statements that Washington was "one of the most influential in American history", "a dominant factor in America's founding", "first in war—first in peace—and first in the hearts of his countrymen" and "the great exemplar of republicanism". Imagine what would happen if we introduced something critical! Happy New Year to you too! Dormskirk (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I think Washington had many great qualities. He was a good man and rightly revered. He also made few mistakes - but Asgill was one of them - and he knew it. Believe it or not, I do not think he actually knew what happened to Asgill at TDT; he may not even have known that this one letter was omitted to the Newhaven Gazette (if it was his loyal aides who ensured that omission - but I have no way of knowing the truth of that). Just to be quite clear, I am definitely not anti-Washington, although I think Asgill was, with good reason. Well, I have had my say, so I'll leave it to GW to have his: "truth will ultimately prevail where pains is taken to bring it to light" - ironic, no?! But this is the one which has prevailed for so long: "it is well known, that when one side only of a Story is heard, and often repeated, the human mind becomes impressed with it, insensibly". I find it really extraordinary that GW made two statements (in totally different contexts, as you yourself pointed out) that apply to Asgill so perfectly. Arbil44 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

When something bugs you it tends to go on bugging you until you do something about it! So it is with me over the letter held back and not published in the Newhaven Gazette. Would it be possible to add to the following sentence on the CA page? "His letters on the matter were printed in the New-Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine.[14]" - but a further link to the Journal would be needed since this is where the information comes from (as researched by the Americans, not me)..."all except one, which was held back either by Washington, or his aides"...? Will the banditi come for me if I do that, but you would need to to the link, since it is already used elsewhere. Arbil44 (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi - I am not clear which citation you want me to add at the end of the extra words. Please advise. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
As previously mentioned!!! "but a further link to the Journal would be needed since this is where the information comes from" - are you going to put the extra words in, or am I? I will foul up another link to the Journal since it is already linked elsewhere, hence requesting your help on that. Arbil44 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. If I need reinforcements then I'll call for help! Arbil44 (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Tried a dozen times to link James Gordon to "Clan Gordon" rather than "The House of Gordon" without any success at all...I know he belongs to the "Clan", but I am not so sure about the "House" - help!Arbil44 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no such category as Clan Gordon on wikipedia: members of the clan are listed as House of Gordon on wikipedia: probably some ancient tradition. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi Arbil, I'll answer here rather than my talk page. I've got a feeling that the output from primap may not be suitably licensed for use on Wikipedia. Looking at there appear to be two conditions to take into consideration;

  1. Which version of primap you are using. It's an unusual condition but primap insist on the professional version being used before any output can be used commercially. Wikipedia licensing requires commercial reuse to be permissible therefore it looks like unless you've paid for the professional version any output is going to fail this criteria.
  2. The source data. If you've used a OSM base map this has a specific licence for reuse - fortunately one that is Wikipedia compliant. Any other base map looks to be licence-free so no issues there.

So it's really down to which version of the software you've used. If it's not professional than it's not Wikipedia complaint, the way round this would be to host the map on your own website (as per the letters previously discussed) and link through to it. Nthep (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Nthep. It was a "free" version of their software, so I didn't pay for it! It is watermarked "MapCreator 2.00 Free Edition" and also "", so I guess I cannot use it?! It isn't worth having an external link to - it is pretty rubbishy really! I guess I cannot upload it to this page so you can look at it can I? On second thoughts - would you be able to point me to software I may use, which would enable me to input a route in the US? Arbil44 (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've found the basic map of relevant area here [9]: © OpenStreetMap contributors - this will mean penning in the route myself and gluing on the destination place names, so I hope, when I've done all that, there will be no problem using this (with the copyright logo still in place on the map}? Arbil44 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you around Nthep? I am being told that my latest map is being nominated for deletion. I do not understand because their website says it can be used, with accreditation. Please could you help me here since I risk being banned. This is the relevant website: The person who has contacted me (Ciaurlec‬ ) doesn't appear to speak English, which is making matters worse. Arbil44 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at File:01 - Our Asgill Road Trip 13-31 May 2019.jpg and c:commons:project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose I suspect the nomination is on the basis that the file isn't obviously educational and not to do with the attribution. The main thing against it, at the moment, is that it is unused. One it is in use, the objections start to fall away. Nthep (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The map I really want to keep is the one from - because that was the most important journey of my life and ended up changing history. It is also connected entirely with Joshua Huddy and Charles Asgill - both of whom have Wikipedia pages. I am so out of my depth here, I really am. Could you help me on my WikiCommons page? Arbil44 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand the bit about not being used. It is on my userpage, along with the photographs of the journey. It was initially put there for the use of the American press who are now taking an interest and it made it so much easier to explain what I did and where I went. The article will come out in January some time. Arbil44 (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I missed that bit but it is now a used file and I have said as much at the deletion discussion. Nthep (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Nthep. If only I knew where that discussion was taking place I'd have joined in! I was talking to myself on my WikiCommons page!Arbil44 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Asgill Affair in the George Washington articleEdit

Hello, I've followed your discussions on the George Washington talk page with interest. It seems you're a relatively new editor here at Wikipedia, still learning the ropes with links and so forth. May I suggest brevity in your comments. During my initial forays into Wikipedia discussions, an experienced editor likewise guided me to brevity. I can't say I've fully gotten the hang of it, and often find others' terseness to be too brief and thus confusing, but there's a strong push-back here against the kinds of "walls-of-text" you've been writing.

More importantly, it seems you are in fact a descendant of Asgill, which presents a conflict of interest you should disclose.

Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I just saw your most recent post on the talk page, where you complained of being outed by another member. In fact, you outed yourself. My own googling quickly confirmed your identity. Please note that the personal info and photos on your user page, combined with your retorts and the link on the GW talk page, make your identity glaringly obvious. Again, very best wishes to you. YoPienso (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Correction: I didn't google at all; I just noticed the photos of yourself on your Wikipedia user page match the photo of the descendant of Asgill on the link you yourself provided. So, you outed yourself twice: my telling Gwillhickers he had too many "greats" and your daughter is the fourth, and by posting and linking to matching photos of yourself. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Yopienso. I joined in 2007, so I am not a new member. I am 75 years old and I find the IT side of things here very very difficult, however pathetic that may sound. As I just mentioned to Dormskirk, you cannot teach an old dog new tricks (least not this one) and I always feel like I'm a moron at the bottom of the pile here. My lack of IT skills hamper me enormously, ruin Wikipedia as an 'experience' and make my life a total misery every time I am online here. I am already under a COI but it seems to have been slackened, I imagine because those who know me here know that I am trustworthy. Maybe I am giving myself too much credit, and they just don't have time to monitor me as they should. As for my lengthy posts at what was for me up until 3am, I could have done without all the totally spurious questions thrown my way, most of which had nothing to do with the matter in hand. I do, however, appreciate your kind post in which you offer advice. I am very nearly done on Wikipedia and will be leaving soon - just a couple of niggly issues to be ironed out. I am verbose, both in the written and spoken word. Unfortunately I cannot help who I am!

Just to add (there was a conflict editing) that I was outed first, which I had not expected on the Washington talk page. I had said or done nothing to deserve that. But you are right, after the COI was slapped on me there was little point in trying to hide who I am. I am not ashamed of who I am and I have not committed any crimes on Wikipedia. Nor elsewhere for that matter!Arbil44 (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi - I was sad to see your comment tonight on the Washington talk page. "Since I am entirely on my own here, with not a soul supporting me - Dormskirk has not appeared for some time ". I was deliberately holding back so as not to cut accross you. But at the same time I was providing my advice to you - several times - on the Asgill talk page.

As you know I had concerns about inserting anything on the Washington page in the first place. But I was the only one who was prepared to give it a go.

Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

All this has made me very sad indeed Dormskirk, but I felt very lonely and alone with you only 'in the background'. Whether you agree or not, is basically irrelevant, because that is how I felt. It was terrifying, and I was slaughtered and it is so very very clear that nobody actually understands any of it. It is a dire situation when people, totally uneducated in a particular subject, make major and history changing edits which affect history as it will be recorded in the future. My greatest sadness is the impact it has had on our so-called friendship (all I know about you is that you use a desktop computer, so how come any friendship at all?), because I am leaving now. Sod it whether the Mansel letters are sorted out - I can only do so much - and if people don't reply then I will just leave it as it is. As for St. Mary's church - I cannot take any more struggling to get three words inserted on Wikipedia. For every 3 words inserted, since 21 August 2019, I have had to write 3 chapters begging for insertion. I have got to put myself and my husband first now (he's just out of hospital having had the 4th operation between us since the Asgill page was culled). Against my will I made another edit on the Washington page. The proposed edit is littered with mistakes. I'm too much of a perfectionist to walk away without pointing them out, for the umpteenth time. Goodbye Dormskirk. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I am extremely sad you feel that way but the best of luck anyway. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I wish it had ended differently, because I became very fond of you. You also forget that I commended you on your bravery - congratulated you and praised you and told you I would support you all the way. My bravery was mega compared with yours though! Who on this planet would believe that all we were trying to do was to make Wikipedia truthful, unbiased and whatever the other thing is it is supposed to be! Oh, yes, neutral. What a laugh. Nobody wants any of those things! Excuses, excuses, excuses. It might have made all the difference had we been a band-of-three in "Team Asgill" and the bloody missing member has the bloody Journal too! For what it is worth, I maintain that the best edit is the one you uploaded to the GW page. Anne (sending you a 'virtual' parting kiss to be received on your desktop computer!) Arbil44 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Dormskirk – I’m not really here of course, but since the Asgill page is going to be the source for GW’s misdemeanours, we have a potentially big problem and although I have been aware of it previously, it has become important in a way it previously wasn’t. The reference I refer to is here:15 - (Vol. I.) Thursday, 16 November, 1786 (No. 40.) NEW HAVEN GAZETTE. "The Conduct of GENERAL WASHINGTON, respecting the Confinement of Capt. Asgill, placed in its true Point of Light." This publication, although purporting to be a replica of what went into the NHG, doesn’t entirely match up with what was printed in the NHG. I really think that it needs to be removed entirely, because the Journal covers everything under discussion on the GW page, but if you think otherwise, then a simple link to the NHG would be better: I don’t think it was me to insert that link (I may be wrong, but if it’s not too much trouble I’d like to know who did) but I suspect it may have been CL or even you when you were both trying to help me improve sources. I am hugely grateful that CL finally made an appearance on behalf of Team Asgill. Your summary is good too, but does not cover the fact that the proposed draft states: “Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication”. I’ve already explained that that original letter of 3 May was submitted. It was the 18 May one which wasn’t. There are more than enough pears in this pear shaped job being done. I also think it is really important, now, to include a link to Hazen’s letter of 27 May 1782, Our ammunition needs to be waterproof. Since I am not here I cannot change the links, now can I? I'm feeling pole-axed and although I deleted myself, it doesn't actually feel that way. I just couldn't take any more of the uneducated people with uneducated views. They are totally blinkered, and they run Wikipedia. Take a look at the copyright questions page. Ironic that that was part of what brought me down. And CL's nit-picking about terminology used on the TDT map! It all happened at once and was just too much for me. Anne. (If you ever need to refer to me in future, please call me Anne, just as CL did, which I very much appreciated.}.Arbil44 (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - It is good to hear that "while you are not really here" your considerable expertise can still be called on. I have adjusted my summary re the "original" letter. Let's see what happens next. Many thanks and best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that Dormskirk - important to get that done, but please don't overlook those links. They could soon become critical. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Understood. I will certainly bear the links in mind but do not want to complicate things any further at the moment. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
OMG, Dormskirk, you do know I am talking about the Asgill page don't you? I don't want to make false accusations, but I am pretty sure CL gave the No.15 link and it would not bear detailed investigation. Also, I have quoted Hazen's letter too, today, and it most certainly needs a link (although it is also quoted in the Journal). Now then Dormskirk, chop chop! We are both users of the native English language aren't we, or are you actually from Calcutta?!! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see you've made two edits for links, but why is that dodgy 15 still linked to the old source? I've refreshed my page, so don't understand. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I have now removed the old citation 15. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I feel embarrassed for the man: "How does anyone know that Washington was trying to "hide" the letter? Seems to me if the letter was actually that damning he would have destroyed it". I trust that someone with such enormous bias will not be the final arbiter. Points: 1) The letter of 18 May 1782 (not being submitted to TNHG) has never been revealed before - it is totally new information 2) There is only one source for this information - the Journal 3) I have been paid nothing whatsoever for the efforts I have gone to; any profits from potential sales goes directly to LancasterHistory, who had about 126 people involved in the production. 4) Every single word I posted on the GW talk page has been totally ignored. 5) I hope this will be concluded soon because there is absolutely no rebuttal possible, and this needs to be aired. 6) The man is rambling about spurious trivia which has nothing to do with the main event. He clearly hasn't even read the Asgill page. Good luck. Please don't backtrack Dormskirk. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Thanks for that. Let's see what he drafts. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
If they are going to bring in the fact that Washington didn't want Asgill to go to the gallows (not many did - Huddy's commanding officer didn't - Huddy's wife didn't - everybody liked him, including Hazen and Dayton) then the fact that Asgill was not treated well also needs to be included. There are about 70 sources on the Asgill page - perhaps the man could check them out? I thought the objections to the original post you uploaded was that it was too long? Actually it only reflected exactly what is in the source (your comment, weeks ago, was "it looks good to me" although you said it was not perfect on the GW page), so was, in fact, extremely appropriate. There are no other sources for the matter in hand, unless it becomes a long and detailed paragraph. Someone suggested that the Asgill page be linked for the details of the case - and I would prefer that to the kind of submission likely to be proposed. The Journal has the whole of the Articles of Capitulation listed and the whole of the New Haven Gazette too. It is very very comprehensive. How could it not be with so much new information coming out? Please don't feel obliged to reply. I am only trying to continue with the support I promised you, so that the right ammunition is to hand. If you/we succeed, and that is far from certain, it will be a major achievement. Arbil44 (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Thanks for that. Yes, if there is too much extraneous information then ironically he will fail foul of WP:UNDUE. I think that this is going to take time to resolve. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - What do you think of the latest proposal from Gwillhickers? It is wordy but is it factually correct? Also what should we use as the citation for the last sentence? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Counter Proposal : Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots (link needed for Patriots if it is necessary to have one for Loyalists) and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782 Washington wrote a letter to General Moses Hazen[1] , countermanding his previous orders of 3 May, now stating that conditional British Captains must be selected for the drawing of lots, and one would be executed for the (retributive is repetitive) execution of Joshua Huddy; Charles Asgill was chosen. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war.[1] Following appeals from the French Crown for Asgill’s life to be spared, consideration between Congress, Alexander Hamilton and Washington, Asgill was finally released.[3][4][5] (the following is irrelevant to the matter in hand - Washington, in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill,[2] acknowledged his letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him and issued Asgill a pass that would take him to New York.[6] ) Four years later, Washington's (it was NOT the ORIGINAL letter which was excluded, it was the countermanding letter of 18 May which showed Washington to be a war criminal that was excluded) letter to General Hazen of May 18, 1782 was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".[citation needed] (The ENTIRE paragraph is attributed to the Journal which is the first and only publication to reveal Washington’s deception). (The following to be added) Since Washington’s Papers on The Asgill Affair formed the basis for all subsequent recorded accounts of these events, history has been denied the truth. Arbil44 (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne - Looks good. But what are we going the offer as a citation for "Since Washington’s Papers on The Asgill Affair formed the basis for all subsequent recorded accounts of these events, history has been denied the truth"? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, there was an edit clash when I tried to post the Counter Proposal above, which I prepared off-line, and I meant to add something to you peronally, and I didn't mean to sound abrupt. The proposal makes it clear that no grasp has yet been achieved regarding the nub of the matter. Washington's November letter to Asgill, granting him parole, was courteous in the extreme. A very kind letter. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter in hand, any more than Asgill's treatment at TDT has. As you say, this is going to go on for quite some time. Good luck. I will remain at your side.
There was another edit clash when I tried to post again. I had a discussion about citations for what isn't there, either with you or CL, long ago. If something has been deliberately hidden from history, like Washington's letter of 18 May 1782 and Asgill's letter of 20 December 1786 - isn't it OBVIOUS that history has been skewed? I don't know what to say, other than "obviously" but with your vast experience as an editor, compared to mine, perhaps you will know? The Journal covers all this. I will read the chapter again and see if they make this point. Probably not, because it is obvious, and they don't pass judgement. They leave their readers to make up their own mind. The review from Rosemary Krill touches on this and that is on my userpage. Brace yourself for the fray and I will too! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - OK. That makes sense. I will attribute it to the journal for now and see what happens. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively we could go with your suggestion, which, apparently, needed no citation (joke)! "the incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every subsequent account written". A little tweaking needed, as it is a bit clumsy. I am at the dentist this afternoon round about the time America wakes up. I will log in here as soon as I returrn, which will probably be round about 4pm. Arbil44 (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
OK. I prefer that as I have used it before. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Could the second "subsequent" in that sentence be changed to "future"? I have got very serious problems regarding the other page we dealt with today, which I cannot talk about publicly. I have had to email CL about it, since you are incommunicado privately...the entire page may have to be removed, by him, if he cannot resolve the issue. Just a heads-up since you kindly created that page. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I have changed the second subsequent and noted re the other page. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and I'm back now! Heard from CL and I think the other thing will be a simple matter - just don't ask me questions about it please! Ready for battle to commece on the GW thread and even looking forward to it! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Great!! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations continue on night of 14/15 February 2020Edit

Hi - Views welcome on the latest proposal from Gwillhickers. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Dormskirk, it is so bad that it is hardly worth my while doing what I did this morning with the easrlier draft. If this is going to be the thrust of it then it will become a very long paragraph because I will absolutely insist that what actually happened to Asgill be included too. That would make it twice as long as it is. He has got two retributives back in and the murderes of Huddy weere the Loylists - not the British. It was their Hero, Benjamin Franklin's SON, William Franklin who ordered the murdeer of Huddy. And, by the way, I have an email from a descendant of Huddy pointing out that he was a total bastard. I shall include her very words - quote her. Those who actually know this piece of history know about Huddy - this man has another set of linkers on. What do we do because his latest is worse than this morning. I'm not prepared to even work on it because if I do I will put in at least two sentences about how Asgill was abused, beaten, deprived food and even prevented from receiving letters from his family. This is getting bad - I thought he just might see reason. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It is getting very long. I suggest we go back saying it is getting too sympathetic towards Washingon and we need a sentence or two on the abuse that Asgill took to rebalance it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Another edit clash. What do I do in those circumstances. I tend to cut and then paste, but it does delay my replies. I'd say that we will settle for the Counter Proposal or else we will put a substantial amount in about how Asgill was actually treatedd, which will mean it does not comply with the wiki rules you mentioned before. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Now we have notes included which take the whole thing backwards even more. When will they realise that Washington's published letters were minus the one showing him as a war criminal? Arbil44 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition we have the wrong name for the newspaper. It was The New-Haven Gazeette and Connecticut Magazine of 16 November 1786 which published FIRST. Other papers followed suit the following year, but the first mentioned is quoted in full in the Journal. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Fine. I will respond accordingly. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree about the latest proposal "even at greater length, he or she has my support." If he wrote it it would be absolutely historically wrong and totally biased. If I wrote it it wouldn't be accepted by him. It is far better to settle for a link to Asgill's page for further details. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we go back with the following:

The Asgill Affair was introduced to this article because of the recent controversy over Washington's violation of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation - so this is the right place for it. The paragraph is getting rather long now and, in my view too sympathetic towards Washington. I would urge you to look again at the counter-proposal I put forward otherwise we really will be inserting a sentence or two on the appalling abuse that Asgill took, which is well-documented, to re-balance it. By the way, it was The New-Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine of 16 November 1786 which published first. Best wishes.

Please feel free to tweak Dormskirk (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Very slightly tweaked and my spelling error on Gazette corrected! Please add the bit about no longer complying with the wiki rules on length. Arbil44 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Let me know when you will be calling it a day so I don't wait for movement that won't happen! Arbil44 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I am inclined to call it a day now and so if Gwillhickers does respond overnight we can consider it at our leisure tomorrow. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Good plan! See you here tomorrow, same place same discussion! Night night. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Same to you! Dormskirk (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Inevitably I'm still up! I do find it hard to sleep with all this going on. While Anastrophe's contribution is conciliatory I absolutely will not tolerate any inclusion other than what is in the Journal, and it is the Journal's discovery which is under debate and why all this is happening. Anastrophe acknowledges her lack of knowledge of this case and since I am the only one with her finger totally on the button it is time they listened to me! We've been taken so off course it is ridiculous. Having been forced to listen to the ramblings, and the insertion of Asgill's letter into the equation, it is hardly surprising that everyone is confused. This is what the Journal states:

Appendix D
The Fateful Correspondence between
Commander in Chief George Washington
and Brigadier General Moses Hazen
On May 3, 1782, Brigadier General Moses Hazen received the first message from Washington ordering him ::to “designate…an unconditional prisoner” to be hanged in retaliation for the murder of Joshua Huddy. ::This was the same letter Humphreys used in his article in The New-Haven Gazette (see chapter VI). We ::show it again here (though in its National Archives transcription) so as to keep this thread of ::correspondence complete and to show the contrast between this letter in which Washington ordered Hazen ::to find a soldier not covered by treaty and his next letter [of May 18, 1782] in which he ordered ::Hazen to find any soldier, regardless of whether they are covered by treaty or not. The balance of the ::correspondence described a state of affairs that grew in confusion.

Then on page 154 it is stated:

Interestingly, Col. Humphreys in his newspaper defense of Washington (see Chapter VI), chose not to ::include this letter [of May 18, 1782] which shows Washington violating Article XIV of the Yorktown ::Articles of Capitulation.

This is all straightforward, and has nothing whatever to do with how Washington eventually felt in his letter to Asgill granting him parole. Nor has it got anything whatsoever to do with how Asgill was actually treated. It must be remembered that, now, nobody can be sure whether Humphreys made this decision all by himself, or whether on Washington's orders. It is irrelevant, GW's letters regarding Asgill were put forward to the newspaper for publication in George Washington's name, and the buck stops with the Commander-in-Chief. The decision not to publish the letter of May 18, 1782 was Washington's.

I'll leave you to ponder on this (and anything else which comes in after I saw the post mentioned above). Your first class diplomacy has its place, but too much pussy footing about now will only mean this goes on forever. Time to put on your Field Marshall's hat and tell them it is the re-draft of yesterday morning which we are in favour of, and we don't want to look further than that - other than reverting to the version you actually posted on the GW page - i.e. back to the best version of all! We meed to stick to the Journal - that is the only reference needed - it covers everything and quotes everything in full - Articles of Capitulation - NHG article - so all of GW's correspondence. It is such a good publication no other sources are necessary. Arbil44 (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

All understood. The ball is still in their court so let's see what they come up with. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
They've thrown the ball away - there is no longer an umpired game being played. I think you will find, when you look in here again, that the total and utter historically inaccurate rubbish of the latest proposal has actually been uploaded to the GW page - they are so ignorant they appear not to understand that when they were making those decisions it was the middle of the night here, in spite of you posting at about the time I eventually went to bed. I hardly slept and was awake again at 5.30am. If what I suspect is the case, then please will you delete it from the GW page? If praise of Huddy (which is totally outside of the situation) is included, please be prepared for me to spew all over this page. No, I am not biased, I went to Huddy's grave - how unbiased could I get? Have they been to Huddy's grave I wonder? Doubtful - they've never heard of any of this. Can we ask for a new, unbiased, balanced and unprejudiced team to replace the one we have? Anastrophe's praise of version three has brought about disaster. She admits she knows nothing of this part of history. How come, when you submitted my first draft, they said it was too long? Now they want, and believe it is correct, to have something twice as long.

I've taken out the parenthesis, which bothered them so much. The following is copied from long long ago in a land, far far away.

On 18 May 1782, Washington decided to throw caution to the wind and wrote to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, countermanding his previous orders and told him to include ‘conditional’ British officers when selecting one to send to the gallows, in retribution for the murder of Captain Joshua Huddy a few weeks earlier. In doing so he was fully cognisant that he was violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Four years later, on 16 November 1786, this letter was not submitted for publication with the rest of his letters regarding "The Asgill Affair" of 1782. Those incomplete letters subsequently formed the basis of every account written about the events of 1782, in the following two and a half centuries. Arbil44 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

My original effort amounts to 127 words and they said it was too long. Their Compromise Proposal is 206 words long, which is 79 more words than the original which they rejected for being too long. If the rubbish of verson III has been uploaded they have failed to wait until I include a lengthy piece regarding the cruelty inflicted on Asgill, a totally innocent young man of 20 years old. The very best offer I can put on the table is the Counter-proposal Dormskirk, you need to become the Secretary of State for Defence - a Field Marshall is now far too junior a person for this task. Arbil44 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations continue on 15 February 2020Edit

Could we talk about the above here Dormskirk. I do not want to become a burden on you, and I want to support you to the hilt, but I am beginning to feel in need of your support for me too, in addition to your support for the cause. This is getting me down because we are up against the banditti you warned me about and the negotiations are taking far too long. We need to stay strong for one another too, because it is only us fighting for King (George III) and Country here. Arbil44 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne - The way that wikipedia works see need consensus: see WP:CONS. In my experience the field marshal thing does not work anyway. I did indeed warn you about the banditi: this may take time to negotiate that consensus with them. At the moment they have not agreed to upload anything to the article and that is why on the night of the 12 February I was keen to get something on the Asgill affair uploaded. Once it is uploaded it can be edited but at the moment there is no consensus to upload anything. I think we should maintain our strategy and draft a piece regarding the cruelty inflicted on Asgill. The end-result might be something like the compromise proposal but with the cruelty bit included. Dormskirk (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Much against my wishes I have now spent time doing nothing more than correctly the terribly inaccurate history included in their most recent draft. The following, which has now become so long, does not include my contribution on Asgill's treatment. I am not prepared to spend time doing that because it does not belong there anyway, any more than all this soft-pedalling on behalf of Washington does either. Here it is, now factually correct, but a complete dog's breakfast. Do you want to give up and walk away? Say if you do. Do you know anyone who is interested in an unbiased wikipedia who would join Team Asgill? You and I are heading for the men in white coats the way this is going.

After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen[1] (countermanding his previous orders of May 3, 1782) that a conditional British Captain would be selected by lot to be executed for the murder of patriot leader, Joshua Huddy. Huddy had been executed on the orders of William Franklin, the Loyalist son of Benjamin Franklin, and Captain Lippincott had carried out his orders. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined, following a British court martial of Lippincott, which determined he had only been following Franklin’s orders. [2] Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead. During the course of his consequential imprisonment,

Asgill was treated like a circus animal, with drunken revellers paying good money to enter his cell and taunt or beat him.[1] Left for dead after one such attack, he was subsequently permitted to keep a Newfoundland dog to protect himself.[2] His conditions were so bad that his legs were left damaged from the use of leg irons.[3]


  1. ^ Anne Ammundsen, "Saving Captain Asgill," History Today, vol. 61, no. 12 (December 2011)
  2. ^ Kidd, William (1852). Kidd's Own Journal. William Spooner. p. 265.
  3. ^ "Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive". Retrieved 27 August 2015.

After appeals from the French Crown [this came first – and this resulted in] … and much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, and Washington, Asgill was finally released,[5][6][7] and Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York.[8] Washington’s countermanding orders to Hazen, of May 18, 1782, was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation.[1][3] Later, Washington's feelings on matters became more sympathetic and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him.[4] Four years later, Washington's second letter, [still they refer to the original letter – this is insane – Washington’s original letter of May 3, 1782 was countermanded and that is why this discussion is taking place] (countermanding his earlier instructions to Hazen), of May 18, 1782 was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair". As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries. Arbil44 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne - I have no intention of giving up. I appreciate the work you have done above which will be extremely useful. But I am now leading this and I need your expertise - specifically on the way Asgill was treated. This is culled from the Asgill article. Please edit as you see fit.

Asgill was treated like a circus animal, with drunken revellers paying good money to enter his cell and taunt or beat him.[1] Left for dead after one such attack, he was subsequently permitted to keep a Newfoundland dog to protect himself.[2] His conditions were so bad that his legs were left damaged from the use of leg irons.[3]


  1. ^ Anne Ammundsen, "Saving Captain Asgill," History Today, vol. 61, no. 12 (December 2011)
  2. ^ Kidd, William (1852). Kidd's Own Journal. William Spooner. p. 265.
  3. ^ "Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive". Retrieved 27 August 2015.
Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Earlier I referred to the resultant re-draft, above, as a dog's breakfast. Please forgive my language, and delete if necessary, but my speciality is not 'polishing a turd'. The end result is quite appalling, even though I have tweaked little bits here and there some more. Historically it is now accurate, which was far from the case previously. If they push me on Huddy I will be out with the cannons. I have also included your suggestion, which is fine. The quotes come from both History Today, which should be included in the citations, and, of course, from the Journal too. It might be worth including that he was denied edible food, until he provided Timothy Day with huge sums of money (and, of course, it was James Gordon who got it for him) - years later Asgill was fighting the Paymaster General who wanted the money back from him personally, and letters from his family were denied him too, but I am not sure how to deal with your addition because of the IT you have used. I am thankful you are not going to give up, but do you know anyone who would fight for an unbiased wikipedia as part of Team Asgill? You are, on the face of it, alone and this is not right. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Great. Many thanks as always for your support. And I appreciate the additional ammunition. I can work with this and resolve the IT aspects. On the question of support I think that Cordless Larry is the only other editor who is remotely interested in this. Dormskirk (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll leave you to deal with the final tweaking, but should warn you that I have just now tried to get it a little bit more in chronological order. I still think it is that thing I mentioned earlier! Arbil44 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just tweaked the paragraph starting "Earlier". I'll go and read the paper now and leave you to get on! The page views for the page are quite high. How come nobody wants to help? Anne Arbil44 (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I see you already posted on the GW page, but some of my corrections have been missed.

that conditional British Captains would be selected by lot, and one to be executed for the murder of patriot leader, Joshua Huddy

He was denied edible food

Alexander Hamilton, and Washington

As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries. [This has to be obvious – what kind of citation is needed for it - or put in something which means the same thing].

It might have been better to let me see the final version before it went on the GW page. because it is not quite what I revised! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne - OK. Apologies for that. It is quite difficult trying to add in the citations and wikilinks at the same time. I will take another look. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - I think I have picked up everything now but please let me know if I have still missed something. Dormskirk (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Dormskirk, plase could you C&P it here, even if it means there are links at the bottom of the page which shouldn't be there. This is my talk page and I don't mind, but I find it very difficult to check an entry on the GW page where I cannot correct if something isn't right. Please give me the chane to see the final before it is entirely too late. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Here it is:

After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, on May 18, 1782, Washington wrote, in a letter to General Moses Hazen[1] that conditional British Captains would be selected by lot, and that one was to be executed for the murder of patriot leader, Joshua Huddy. Huddy had been executed on the orders of William Franklin, the Loyalist son of Benjamin Franklin and Captain Lippincott had carried out his orders. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined, following the British court martial of Lippincott, which determined he had only been following Franklin’s orders.[2] Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, having selected the 'unfortunate' lot. During the course of his consequential six-month imprisonment, Asgill was treated like a circus animal, with drunken revellers paying good money to enter his cell and taunt or beat him.[3] Left for dead after one such attack, he was subsequently permitted to keep a Newfoundland dog to protect himself.[4] He was denied edible food, until he was forced to pay large sums of money to the Landlord,[3] denied letters from his family and his conditions were so bad that his legs were left damaged from the use of leg irons.[5] Washington's second orders to Hazen of May 18, 1782 had been a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation.[1][6] Prior to Asgill's eventual release on parole, however, Washington's feelings on matters became more sympathetic and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him.[7] After appeals from the The King and Queen of France (this came first and resulted in...') and much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, and Washington, Asgill was finally released,[8][9][10] and Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York.[11] Four years later, Washington's second letter of 18 May, 1782, countermanding instructions he had given to Hazen on 3 May, 1782, was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding The Asgill Affair. As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries.[12]


  1. ^ a b Mount Vernon
  2. ^ Flexner, 1967, p.479
  3. ^ a b Anne Ammundsen, "Saving Captain Asgill," History Today, vol. 61, no. 12 (December 2011)
  4. ^ Kidd, William (1852). Kidd's Own Journal. William Spooner. p. 265.
  5. ^ "Home | Search the archive | British Newspaper Archive". Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  6. ^ Articles of Capitulation, Yorktown
    The Harvard Classics, Vol. 43, 1909–14
  7. ^ National Archives
  8. ^ Freeman, 1952, Vol.5, pp.414-415
  9. ^ Randall, 1997, pp.394-395
  10. ^ Chernow, 2010, pp.426-427
  11. ^ Chernow, 2010, p.427
  12. ^ "The Journal of Lancaster county's Historical society Vol. 120, No. 3 Winter 2019".
Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is much easier to amend it in its final draft format (until I get into the edit page where it is, for me, very difficult with all the references interfering with the flow). Apart from fairly minor changes, the one major change I have made is to put 'the King and Queen of France'. Without going into all the details, let me tell you that Queen Marie Antoinette was greatly affected by Lady Asgill's letter and she was very instrumental in making sure that Vergennes wrote to Washington to say that the French were not happy about the plan to hang Asgill. Otherwise, I honestly don't think I can fiddle with this any more in the hope of making it flow better. I only hope that the totally uninitiated, who may one day read this on wikipedia, will be able to grasp the meaning, because even I struggle to comprehend! When different writing styles are merged it tends to, well, not improve matters. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. I will copy and paste it to the Washington talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If we get anywhere with this, and I am not counting my chickens, I would like to get you a T Shirt with "Team Asgill" printed on it. But that would involve you telling me your colour preference, size and your address (or any old address), so, given that will probably not meet with your approval, then well, I can't do so! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - I agree about not counting chickens and thanks re the T-shirt...I do believe this has some way to go. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you have your reasons for saying that, but I am rather mystified. They liked the current draft so much they were talking about uploading it to the GW page. All I have done is correct lots of historical inaccuracies and tried to get it a little more chronological. Plus, of course, putting in something about how Asgill was treated. Just a smattering though, given he wrote an 18 page letter. On what grounds can they reject it? That they don't like the historical truth? I cannot see any other grounds myself. Could you just tell me one other thing. In the event it was accepted in its current form, would it mean dozens of people could then descend on it and make it inaccurate again after upload? Anne Arbil44 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I make the comment from experience of wikipedia rather than insight into this particular situation. And yes, there is a risk that the paragraph will subsequently be edited by people who are not familiar with the subject. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The West coast of America will be awake now, so maybe we will find out soon. I just hope it isn't going to be yet another 3am this end. I'm so tired, my brain has gone into shutdown! Arbil44 (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no intention of continuing beyond 1.00am and strongly recommend that you don't either! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree with Yopienso. It is far too long but only because they wanted to make it all about excuses for GW. We then insisted Asgill's side be included too, and now it is a total dog's breakfast and doesn't read well at all. I honestly have difficulty understanding it - and I am not joking. My original submission is the answer! Anne Arbil44 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
So, do I. My instinct is to let Gwillhickers respond to Yopienso's criticism and then we should help out by re-proposing your original solution. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's here, ready to go, with a slightly different final sentence: On 18 May 1782, Washington decided to throw caution to the wind and wrote to General Moses Hazen, in Lancaster, countermanding his previous orders and told him to include ‘conditional’ British officers when selecting one to send to the gallows, in retribution for the murder of Captain Joshua Huddy a few weeks earlier. In doing so he was fully cognisant that he was violating Article XIV of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected Prisoners of War. Four years later, on 16 November 1786, this letter was not submitted for publication with the rest of his letters regarding "The Asgill Affair" of 1782. As a consequence of this omission history has been misreported for the following two and a half centuries. Everything is covered fully in the Journal. It is the only source needed. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I've received notification of a change on the GW talk page but cannot identify what it is? Anne Arbil44 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is just a change to a category at the bottom of the page. Any thoughts on Gwillhickers' latest proposal (which is to revert to his compromise) before I go back with your original solution? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm putting it here so that I can think about it better. What irritates me immensely is that it is not my amended version, it is back to his version. He is blinkered to the fact that the matter in hand is a simple one of a violation of the treaty and a cover up. It is not about anything else at all. And, may I say, that while GW's letter of November 11 was, indeed, a nice letter, it was his letter releasing Asgill - a bit late to say he wanted him to be well treated. As to the claims about Asgill's treatment - it is all there in it glory in the Journal. I'm not making it up - he was beaten on a regular basis and drunkards surrounded his bed nightly taunting him - isn't that like being a circus animal? Just because he knows nothing of the Journl or Asgill's letter, doesn't automatically make it rubbish. I don't think I'm going to like his proposal and it is totally off piste with the issue in hand. I cannot spend the rest of time constantly re-writing the work of someone like this. Am I supposed to? Is it time to resubmit the original work, explaining that all otheer issues are irrelevant to the matter?

Compromise proposal : After the surrender at Yorktown a situation developed that threatened relations between the new American nation and Britain. Following a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists, Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote in a letter to General Moses Hazen[1] that a British Captain would be executed for the execution of a popular patriot leader, Joshua Huddy, at the hands of British Captain Lippincott. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined.[2] Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen instead, by a drawing of lots from a hat. This was a violation of the 14th article of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation.[1][3] Later, Washington's feelings on matters became more sympathetic and in a letter of November 13, 1782, to Asgill, he acknowledged Asgill's letter and situation, expressing his sympathies and desire not to see any harm come to him.[4] After much consideration between the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, Asgill was finally released,[5][6][7] where Washington issued Asgill a pass that allowed his passage to New York.[8][1] Four years later, Washington's original letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".[9][a] Arbil44 (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations on the night of 15/16 February 2020Edit

Yes, let's make the point that we have negotiated in good faith allowing Gwillhickers the sympathetic bit on Washington, providing we get the bit about Asgill's abuse. That said we are prepared to revert to your original proposal. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I've just skimmed it again. Everything that was wrong about it still wrong about it. Why cannot he accept, for instance, that it was at the intercession of France's King and Queen that GW had to do a rethink. Why does he keep putting that in like they were just kept informed? Dormskirk, this cannot go on like this. I cannot re-write, re-write, re-write all the time. I just can't. Tell me if that is what is required of me? Arbil44 (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you should re-write it. I have already made the point (yesterday) that his version was full of historical errors. I propose that I go back and say: 1. His compromise version includes a series of errors which we have corrected in our version earlier today. 2. we have negotiated in good faith allowing Gwillhickers the sympathetic bit on Washington, providing we get the bit about Asgill's abuse. 3. That said, we agree it is too long and would propose our original version. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. However, this man is bigoted and will never see reason and will never accept history as it actually happened. How dare he comment on Asgill's letter, which he hasn't read. Seriously, is one allowed to request new negotiators? Arbil44 (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I will respond accordingly. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Anastrophe. However, we only added Asgill for balance and I have been saying all along that none of the extraneous stuff belongs in the piece - from either side. Arbil44 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Anastrophe may be able to help us resolve this. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm calling it a day now. If anything happens Dormskirk, I'll look at it tomorrow. I just hope I don't wake up to bedlam on the other page! It's such a bind that we have this small window to be awake at the same time as the west coast people (I'm assuming they are, because they post so late our end). Yes, I think we could deal with Anastrophe - less bigoted. Night, see you tomorrow! Arbil44 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Good move. I am going to do the same. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - You might want to look at the message on my talk page. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations on 16 February 2020Edit

My flab is ghasted all over again. I imagine you have seen the following on her userpage: "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." being her aim for wikipedia? With your vast experience I'd like to know how do you deal with negotiations when:

One side has absolutely no knowledge of the matters under discussion
The other side has studied it all for 18 years
One side will not listen when informed of the facts
One side is unable to comprehend that unwelcome facts have been uncovered
One side is unable to comprehend that the person in negotiations did not uncover new facts
One side doesn't believe Americans were the ones to uncover new facts and were proud of doing so

Negotiations, in real life, say in a court of law, would be negotiated by two sides who are fully up to speed with the facts. I haven't dared look at the other page, having naturally come here first. I don't know how to cope with this. There is only so much bashing my head against a brick wall that I can take. While you are indeed Team Asgill's spokesman, the entire weight of these negotiations falls on me.

While your support of me on your talk page was appreciated, I don't see how we can go on without Cordless Larry. I think his presence would make a radical change. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. This is getting very unpleasant: I do feel that my own efforts are under personal attack on this now and feel it should be brought to a conclusion. We either 1. Agree Anastrophe's latest proposal or 2. Seek the intervention of Cordless Larry. If you would like to do the latter, I am completely OK with that. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

When suggesting Cordless Larry be pinged, I meant for his confirmation of all that is being said. I didn't mean I wanted you to walk away and stop being involved. Cordless Larry is terribly busy right now and I do not think he will take over from you. Obviously I shall have to fight entirely alone. My daughter has problems and is very angry that I am not nearly as available for her as she wishes, but hey ho, if I am totally alone, so be it, if you intend to walk away. I reject Anastrophe's suggestion because it is historically inaccurate. ..........................................................

OK, I hope it will be clear that I am now at the end of my rope.

Why are you presenting this as a new revision of the several proposals presented? BECAUSE IT IS VIRTUALLY WORD FOR WORD WHAT IS IN THE JOURNAL OF DECEMBER 2019.


After the surrender at Yorktown, a series of retributive executions between Patriots and Loyalists took place. Washington, on May 18, 1782, wrote a letter to General Moses Hazen that [a] CONDITIONAL (I.E. ONES PROTECTED BY TREATY) British CaptainS would be selected BY LOT for execution, for the killing of patriot leader Joshua Huddy by LOYALIST Captain Lippincott. Washington wanted Lippincott himself to be executed but was declined, AFTER LIPPINCOTT’S COURT MARTIAL DEEMED HE WAS INNOCENT AND THAT HE WAS ONLY FOLLOWING WILLIAM FRANKLIN’S ORDERS. Subsequently, Charles Asgill was chosen by a drawing of lots. This was a violation of the Yorktown Articles of Capitulation, which protected prisoners of war from acts of retaliation. FRANCE WAS FURIOUS ABOUT THIS AND NO NEGOTIATIONS WITH CONGRESS ETC. WOULD HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT THEIR INTERVENTION TO PUT ASGILL’S HANGING TO AN END , SO WHY MAKE IT SOUND AS THOUGH THE KING AND QUEEN WERE SIMPLY BYSTANDERS. WITHOUT THEIR INTERVENTION ASGILL WOULD HAVE BEEN HANGED. After much deliberation by and among the Continental Congress, Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and appeals from the French Crown, Asgill was eventually released. Four years later, Washington's original I HAVE GONE BLUE IN THE FACE EXPLAINING IT WAS NOT, NOT, NOT HIS ORIGINAL letter to General Hazen was not submitted for publication with the rest of Washington's letters regarding "The Asgill Affair".


I don’t think any progress can be made here until the other side have read Washington’s letter to Hazen of 3 May 1782 and his COUNTERMANDING letter of 18 May 1782. It would appear they haven’t bothered to do so since they make the same mistakes, throughout, time and time again. So, as well as being totally ignorant of the wider Asgill Affair – (which, by the way, has very little to do with the matter under discussion here). they continue to make the same basic error. All this has been said over and over again and still they have grasped none of it. Please will you ping Cordless Larry who has read the Journal from cover to cover and knows that your RE-SUBMISSION of last night is virtually word for word what is in the Journal. To suggest it is not a reliable source is to not know what an ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE MAN MIKE ABEL IS AND HIS WIFE IS TOTALLY AMAZING. THEY HAVE COMPLETELY RE-WRITTEN THE ASGILL AFFAIR, FROM START TO FINISH.


I am now going to C&P this post, send it to Lancaster, and ask if they would like to comment. I cannot say whether they will or not, but I shall be asking for a quotable comment from both Mike and Martha Able. I am utterly disgusted at what I - yes I - am being put through here. Arbil44 (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi - The above detailed response is clearly a very personal response from you. I am sure that Mike Able and his wife are amazing people but I have never met them and it is not right that I should be asserting that. That does not stop you from posting your detailed response to the Washington talk page if you want to. I appreciate that Cordless Larry is very busy right now and that you need to support you daughter; but I also have a day job and will be back at work on Monday morning. You have not heard me, Anne, I am am under personal attack on both my talk page and the Washington talk page and I find that very unpleasant. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
So, when I post my post there, do I commence with saying "Dormskirk has now walked away from these discussions, so I am left with no choice but to comment here myself" ? Arbil44 (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
With respect it was you who said on the Washington page "it is time for me to leave Wikipedia now, because I am simply not cut out for this environment". So, please don't accuse me of walking away. That said I am at the end of my tether as well. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am absolutely not cut out for dealing with people who admit they do not know this part of history and do not listen when told. You are now walking away because you don't like the attacks that were levelled at me before. I do not think Cordless Larry would be prepared to do more than say, again, that he has read the Journal and that the Journal reveals GW's law breaking and deception. I have told Mike and Martha that their integrity is now under attack too. I do not know whether they will respond, but if they do it will not be until much later today. I now understand that I am alone and once I manage to fit breakfast in (10 am here) I shall get on with it. I am a nervous wreck, but I am not a quitter. Arbil44 (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you would ping Cordless Larry, since I do not know how to do so. Arbil44 (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: We would welcome your thoughts here. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - You are completely right. I did not like the attacks that were leveled at you before and I don't like the attacks that are being leveled at me now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, both (pinging Dormskirk). I presume this relates to Talk:George Washington#"The Asgill Affair"? The discussion there is very lengthy, and please remember that I'm by no means an expert on this topic. One thing that I'd recommend keeping in mind is that consensus can take time to achieve, and that no article is ever "final", so trying to set deadlines and approaching the discussion as one that can only be resolved late at night when everyone is online together is often counterproductive (see WP:DEADLINE). As for a way forward, have you considered a request for comment? If you could formulate a clear proposal and put it out for comment, you'd attract broader input and it would also help peripherally involved editors such as me understand what the points of contention are. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if Dormskirk would be prepared to do as you suggest Cordless Larry, but you still don't understand how frightened I get when blue links are presented to me. However, thank you for your comment. All I had hoped you might be prepared to do, again, is state that you have read the Journal and it is made clear there that (a) GW violated the treaty and (b) then covered it up. Their proposals are littered with historical inaccuracies. That is all that this is about, but they want to bring in totally irrelevant matters which are only background noise, nothing more. Thanks again. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I really should have added that it is very hard indeed to do anything when one is under attack. Both of us have been now. Soon I am likely to follow Dormskirk's lead and say "sod it, why bother making wikipedia truthful, accurate and unbiased". Arbil44 (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The easiest way to demonstrate what the journal makes clear is to offer some quotes from it. You know the text much more thoroughly than me, Arbil44, so I think you're better placed to do that. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ha,ha, and the next thing will be the Asgill page is vandalised and I'll be right back where I was in August last year. Arbil44 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've done just that here, and some are reading this page, but nobody is listening. I may make another post though, and include it there too. Arbil44 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. Arbil44 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been saved, not by my usual knight in shining armour, but by Victoriaearle. A new publication is out this month supporting everything I've been saying. Will that speedy steed please come back a.s.s.p - again, please. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Your very extensive grasp of the detail means that you are much more likely to achieve a historically accurate outcome than I ever could. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
How about you give me some support though? Like your clipped "Agreed" for instance? It is a very lonely and isolated situation I face there and the people who abuse me are likely to make an appearance soon. Could you not even help me out if I am abused? I do not expect you to know more about Asgill than me. Nobody on the planet does! I just cannot be there without a knight in shining armour to lend me a hand. Surely you know me well enough by now to know that I deal in facts - honesty - and decency? Anne Arbil44 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will keep an eye out this evening. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

OMG Dormskirk, I'm going to need you watching my back, as you always have, for more than this evening. I thought you were my friend? I wish it would be over soon. If you follow "Can we find a way forward" it would be helpful if you could repost your proposal - perhaps? I honestly thought we might be on the brink of something with Victoriaearl's discovery, but now she is saying that she can do nothing more. I've wasted my day and only spoken once to my daughter on the phone. If you could put the proposal alongside the extracts from the Journal would it not demonstrate that one totally reflects the other? Anne Arbil44 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I really don't recommend posting my proposal yet again. That was the catalyst for much of the unpleasantness overnight (" in dismayed, not impressed" etc). It is much better for them to get an understanding of the historical errors (which are well covered above). And that is what you have already encouraged them to do. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to change your signature?Edit

Hi, Anne,
You said in a reply on the George Washington talk page that you prefer to be called "Anne" and dislike your user name. You can change you signature if you wish; I changed mine from Yopienso to YoPienso.
Near the top of the page you should see a small human figure, then your usermame, a bell, a cell phone, "Talk," "Sandbox," and "Preferences," and then several more tabs. Preferences is the one to click if you want to be able to sign your posts as "Anne." Clicking on Preferences opens a new page. Scroll down to "Signature" and then type in "Anne"; don't worry about the little check box below it. Then scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and click "Save." Magic! The next time you type four tildes at the end of a post, we'll see Anne!
Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that your intention is kind, and for that I thank you. I would love to change my username, but I doubt I would get it right if I tried, and I would probably find I had deleted my account by mistake! Besides, what is the point of me staying around on Winkipedia? A unilateral decision has just been made. I am apoplectic with rage. No consensus has been reached. Dormskirk, if you happen to see this post, would you be prepared to remove the offending paragraph on the GW page until such time as consensus is reached? I know that we have both taken a battering here, and elsewhere, and one of my "crimes" is to be "English" and live in "England" - so utterly offensive - but you and I have stuck together for some time now and I have always appreciated the massive amount of help you have given to me. Anne Arbil44 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Removing it now would just create an edit war. Things need to calm down and other editors need to consider your points. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Pooey (no idea how that is spelt!) as my daughter would say! But point taken. Stay with me now that it has really really got nasty. I don't know whether to laugh or cry - run or stay... Anne Arbil44 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Haha! *Winkipedia*!! A Freudian error perhaps? Arbil44 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne, it's not all that hard to change your signature:Preferences, Signature, [type], Save.
Nobody's against you because you're English. No one is being nasty or abusive to you.
It will be more constructive for you to avoid commenting while you are apoplectic with rage.
Please take a few minutes to read Righting great wrongs and Seeing editing as being about taking sides.
Please look at my redactions of your comments on the GW talk page. If you take that kind of approach you will sooner be heard. YoPienso (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Morning YoPienso, this is just a test message to see if I have changed my username or whether I managed to delete my account! Could you please tell Gwillhickers that there is a photograph of me at Huddy's grave on my userpage (I went to Colts Neck and Toms River and went to the Huddy Memorial Park there, which is very beautiful - how on earth could my US research have been complete if I did not include Huddy?) and that, should he wish, I can post the email I received from Huddy's descendant describing him in very unflattering terms. I know emails are not proof, and I wouldn't post her email address of course. And it might take me a while to find her emails because right now I cannot remember her name in order to search for it! Would you also tell him that very early on in the discussions he sneeringly said something like "hey guys, this poster is "English" and lives in "England", meaning now we know how biased this person is going to be and he also revealed that I am Asgill's descendant in that same post. I consider that a racist slur. If you look there you will see I am not a newbie, I joined in 2007 - I know, it is disgusting how little I have learnt in the past 13 years! Now to see what happens with my signature. Anne 06:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Eureka! Anne 06:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Ha! Found it! From Laura Buckner, Huddy's descendant: "My own understanding of Joshua Huddy is that he was a scoundrel and rebel from an early age. Originally of Quaker heritage, the church threw him out for unacceptable behaviour and he was a tyrant with his second wife and her children. While he is viewed as a rather obscure hero in the annals of the Revolutionary War, had he lived beyond the war he may well have been hanged for some other reason based on his attitude and behaviours. A true "black sheep" in his own family!" I had hoped to be able to meet her at Huddy's grave (would have been a good photo-op), but she lives in Belgium, so that didn't work out. In the interests of impartiality, please feel free to post this too. Anne 07:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
You almost have that signature changed! The good news is, you didn't delete your account!   What's missing now are the blue links so people can click on your name to go to your user page. Look at my signature in mark-up (what you see when you're editing) and you'll see those dread double brackets [[   ]]. But I don't type those brackets--they're automatically inserted when I make 4 tildes. I can't account for why the blue links are missing if you typed your name into the signature box. This is what that part looks like on my Preferences page:
Your existing signature:
YoPienso (talk)
[And then a long box to type into right here]
Yours would look like this:
Your existing signature:
Arbil44 (talk) (Notice it's clickably blue.)
[a box, into which you would type "Anne" (no quotation marks)]
If you can't get it, an administrator could fix it for you. I recommend User:Doug Weller, who is able, kind, and discreet. YoPienso (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've looked Huddy up on the web and found that while he was admired as a warrior and successful as a privateer, he was indeed rough (to put it mildly) in civilian life.
You may have misunderstood Gwillhickers when he wrote, "I'm sure Asgill's letter is an unbiased account, (?) as is the account of Asgill's great, great, great grand-daughter Anne Ammundsen, who lives in Great Britain." He said unbiased, and he didn't seem to realize you were the said Anne Ammundsen. YoPienso (talk) 08:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
He's changed the post - it is no longer a truthful representation of what he said and he most definitely made it all sound very very sarcastic. I will try to see where I have gone wrong with my signature, but I must concentrate now on getting to hospital for a procedure this morning. If I can do it quickly now I will, but otherwise this is going to have to wait. Anne 08:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Testing. Anne (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

YOU DID IT!!! Yay for you! YoPienso (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Going to bed now; it's almost midnight on the 16th here in Alaska. YoPienso (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Negotiations on 17 February 2020Edit

Dormskirk, I will not be speaking to Gwillhickers again. It is too stressful. The point he is totally and completely missing (in addition to his inaccurate take on historical events) is that everything ever written about The Asgill Affair has been overtaken by events and The Asgill Affair has now been re-written in the Journal of December 2019. It is the only reference required for his paragraph on the GW page. He hasn't even listed it as a source!! Besides, we have objected, all along, that he insists on including GW's letter of 13 November 1782, which is not only pointless (why say you want someone well treated when you are giving them a passport to leave the US) but it is totally and completely irrelevant to the matters under discussion. We have also said that, if he is going to insist on including that, then we also insist on all the irrelevant stuff about how Asgill was actually treated to be included. I don't want either to be included because we are supposed to be discussing the totally new revelations that (a) Washington ordered that conditional officerS were to draw the lots and (b) Four years later failed to include that letter for publication. Who on earth cannot draw from that that Washington was covering up his lawbreaking orders? Some form of words at the end needs to be included and even one of the posters agreed to an inclusion, that a cover up took place and, consequently, history has been skewed. Now it has disappeared. I am totally baffled why nobody, yet, has grasped the nub of the matter. I am floored that I am still having to point out what this discussion is all about. I am not going to speak to Gwillhickers, so could you copy and paste this message, making it clear that it is me saying this, not you, His learned tomes he gives as sources may as well be binned - the whole saga has been re-written? (what do you think of my new 'signature'!!) Anne 07:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Congratulations on your new signature! I am on my way to work and I am sure that you will understand that I am really not in a position to review the long trails of discussion, to start copying pieces of text or to continue editing during the night for that matter. We are all volunteers here and I am sure you will understand that some of us really need to learn a living! You need to look after yourself and not get stressed about this. Good luck at the hospital. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi Anne, I'd like to discuss the George Washington issue with you here on your talk page. My sense is that you believe the editors on that page are being obstructionist when the fact is that we're bound by Wikipedia rules which are numerous and arcane.

The one that you absolutely need to know about and must abide by is Wikipedia:Five pillars.

The next is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

The next is Wikipedia:No legal threats - these very often are reported to administrators and result in a block.

I won't leave you a long string of other rules but the short and long of it is that we abide by consensus, whether we agree or not. Another important consideration is that there are norms to follow during talk page discussions, as explained in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.

It would be best to allow things to cool down and not ask anyone to post for you, not ask anyone to edit for you, etc.

In the matter of Asgill & Washington (and I very much agree with Anastrophe - they will still be dead tomorrow and the next day, etc., so time isn't of the essence), one of the arcane rules we have is wait whether a recent publication is substantiated by secondary sources. Because such research and the subsequent publications takes time, months & years, often when a new & potentially exciting development is uncovered, it doesn't immediately make it's way onto Wikipedia.

We are no more than scribes here. We re-cast what others have already written and in the case of a subject such as George Washington we wait for multiple sources before adding anything.

I hope this makes sense. I'm also trying very much to calm the waters. Regards, Victoria (tk) 00:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am very touched that both you and YoPienso have tried to guide me. My objection is that the sources [8} and [9] have been removed, unilaterally, with no consultation. I would be really grateful if all editors would now respect my wishes to have nothing further to do with any of this. "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" as Rhett Butler would say. I have tried, until I am blue in the face, to explain over and over and over again. It would appear to me that nobody has yet understood any of it. I would have thought the article you yourself found would be regarded as a secondary source, but that too has been deleted. My thanks to you once more; I appreciate your contact, but goodbye. Anne (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Asgill talk pageEdit

(moving this here, it's not needed on the Asgill talk page) Please see WP:NOTAFORUM regarding your "statement" on the Asgill talk page. Article talk pages are for discussion of article improvement, not for personal statements such as the above. I would strongly suggest that you redact the "statement". As well, a claim of libel bumps perilously close to No Legal Threats, which you bumped up against just yesterday. This is a perilous path. Anne, you have been asked countless times to read the important foundational guidelines that govern wikipedia and wikipedia editor behavior. You are obviously an intelligent person, I would suggest that you heed this advice - and heed it with alacrity. Your above statement is an abuse of the trust placed in editors. You are willfully ignoring the rules here. That is reckless. You may indeed wind up being banned from wikipedia. If that occurs, the fault is your own, due to your choices and actions. Read the guidelines you have been directed to, please. You ignore the rules at your own peril. I offer this advice as the opposite of a 'threat' - I offer it because you have much to offer here, and you are on a path to silencing your own voice. Anastrophe (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest visiting HELP:GUIDE, and work through it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have done as you requested, but why are falsehoods directed at me acceptable? I had nothing whatsoever to do with the revelations under discussion on the GW talk page - nothing. I would not have had the resources to do so that were available to the people at LancasterHistory. They are my friends, so why would I not defend them too? It seems that only I must not write long posts, but you are allowed to write longer ones. It seems I must sit by and be abused, but must never fight back. To fight this battle alone is no longer of any interest whatsoever. If my edit, which was perfectly neutral, historically factual and unbiased, is unacceptable, then there is nothing more I can say or do. I strongly object to the exclusion of the two most important source documents too. In fact, I keep telling myself that that was an unintentional error on your part, because there is no logic to your actions. As to me being of value here - ha! Every single action is a bridge too far IT-wise and brings about a nervous response in my entire being. Definitely not worth it any more. Anne (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
"To fight this battle" - Read WP:BATTLE. You are approaching this as non-negotiable conflict. You may believe that you are the only person in the world who has complete knowledge of the matter; that may indeed be quite the case. But you are a participant here, with equal standing to every other editor, even dimwits such as myself. Nobody is 'in charge'. Nobody holds more power than anyone else. If you approach it as a battle, you are implicitly approaching it as a dichotomy - one side white, one side black, with no shades of grey between those poles. Did you read WP:NEUTRAL? How about WP:WEIGHT? WP:AGF?
"It seems I must sit by and be abused, but must never fight back". Indeed, that in fact is the policy. Responding in-kind means that you are violating the policy of editor behavior. If some editor other than you is abusive, that is unfortunate, and there are remedies if it is in the extreme - but you do not pour petrol on a fire in order to put it out. We are, to put it colloquially, to 'turn the other cheek'. Conflict is amplified when we respond in kind, even if we feel we are merely 'fighting back'. I direct you to the commentary further up on this page, where exceptionally ugly things have been said about other editors here. That is 'in-kind' behavior. It is unbecoming. That others have acted unbecomingly is not license to do so as well.
You have misinterpreted on several occasions what other editors have said - and when you approach the discussion as a battle and a conflict, it's easy to feel you are either victim or victor based on that interpretation - but neither feeling holds weight in a collaborative medium, and only makes matters worse. If you 'don't get your way', that means that you have not collaborated - and it means you are failing the project by your actions.
The HELP:GUIDE was not the entirety of the documents you need to read - the intention is for you to click through the links within it, and read those documents. In short: Wikipedia is not a platform for battles, crusades, or other matters. Wikipedia must present what the plurality of sources say, not what an editor decides is the only genuine source of truth. Every source must be verifiable by any editor, or any reader. With content that is explicitly offline, particularly behind a 'paywall', that makes the task of verification considerably more difficult - but that doesn't preclude such content.
However, it is _dramatically_ more helpful if there are other sources that corroborate or critique it. As it stands, the Lancaster article is a poor choice for a source within the guidelines pertaining to good/acceptable sourcing, again, see WP:VERIFY and WP:NEUTRAL. I realize that sounds ass-backwards, but the researchers themselves are not the best source for an unbiased interpretation of the research or the notability of the research - that is why the vast majority of sources on wikipedia are news sources describing other things, rather than the things themselves. I recall a link was provided to an article that described the Lancaster journal's findings, and that (among any others that discuss the lancaster findings) would be the ideal source to use in the article. From the few snippets that have been shared, and from the very first edit that was added, it appears the Lancaster article is written as narrative, using colourful language that's inappropriate to an encyclopedic article (i refer to that very first sentence presented as an addition to the GW article - that Washington 'threw caution to the wind'. Colourful narrative, not encyclopedic).
As you have become exasperated at repeating yourself, I and other editors have also become exasperated by your failure to read _and understand_ the policies here that govern editor behavior. I am also exasperated that my countless repetitions of _This_ article is about George Washington, not Charles Asgill have come to nothing.
The story of Asgill is a crucial focus of your life. Were there to be a biography of Anne Ammundsen on wikipedia, a large portion of it would be dedicated to your investigations into your relationship to Asgill, and his fate - and that would obviously be appropriate there. In George Washington's article - remembering the scope and breadth of his life, the Asgill affair is a footnote. But it has been battled as if it is the singularly most important fact that needs to be added to his biography. That's where WP:WEIGHT overrides your desire to make the matter into more than it is, again, within the scope of George Washington's life. Let me be clear here: I understand your passion for the matter. I empathize with your passion here. There are topics and matters that I am passionate about as well, and except on rare occasion (when my better angels are pissed at the nearby pub), I avoid articles related to those passions, because my judgement is clouded by my fervor, as yours has been on these matters.
The wikipedia 'conflict of interest' policies are there for that very reason. While 'conflict of interest' has a clear and precise meaning within law, it is not used in that regard here, except in the most extreme circumstances (and even this massive affair doesn't fall within that scope). 'conflict of interest' should be read as vernacular, not law. The conflict is that your interest in the matter is too close to you, leading to - well, where we are today.
I very recently found myself blocked for two days, due to carelessly engaging in edit warring with an editor who clearly believes he is the sole expert on a matter, and that the sources are irrelevant to the truth he insists be in the encyclopedia. It was quite a silly matter, and it remains unresolved. It was just a string of reversions, fighting it out in edit summaries, not even on the talk page. The block was righteous, I didn't fight it, and I learned a good lesson in both process and temperment. Here it is if you're inclined, just keep clicking through the diffs, and reading the edit summaries between me and 'vndk' - . It's a silly dispute over a few characters in the encyclopedia, but I didn't follow wikipedia policies, and suffered the consequences. It marked perhaps the third? fourth? times I've been blocked in fourteen years here, and there have been intervals here where I've been exceedingly active, and been embroiled in long discussions regarding article content. I take a small amount of pride in rarity of any formal actions that have been imposed on me, though I wish I could say it were zero...
I've said it a couple of times, it's meant to be humorous, but it is worth contemplating seriously, in terms of keep a sense of proportion: George Washington is dead. Charles Asgill is dead. They will both be dead tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future. There is no urgency to refining and correcting the GW article's entry about Asgill. Incorrect dates, incorrect attributions, grammar, wording, sourcing - they can all be corrected, and if the sun rises and sets even throught a fortnight, no lives will be lost in the balance. Stamping our feet over this matter would fit well into a Monty Python skit. Instead of 'bring out your dead' - 'but i'm not dead yet, really' - it is 'this man has been dead for about 200 years'... 'let's open the casket and double check!'...well, it certainly loses something in the translation, particularly after 200 years.
You've not been constrained in how much you write here on wikipedia. You, I, and other editors have written far too much on the GW talk page that is not directly related to article improvement. It has not helped the situation, and I accept my share of blame, and include the above. My best advice to you would be to step away from this matter for a while - for whatever 'a while' may mean to you. wikipedia won't fold in the interim. the article will still be there. If it's wrong, it'll get corrected. But it doesn't have to be today, tomorrow, or even next month. In the broader scheme of thing, this is minutia. Anastrophe (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Anastrophe, what you are failing to understand is that my passion is gone - I cannot engage further with a project which will not attribute the two main sources. Surely you can see that, can't you? As I said to Victoriaearle, who kindly messaged, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". It no longer matters to me whether the GW page has mention of what, actually, was an extremely significant event on several levels (lasting over 4 years) interwoven with his many achievements. When your allies are teetering on the edge, and not supporting your actions, and you are simultaneously starting out on a brave new world, it is important. And while I really do understand that he was under great pressure from the people of Monmouth County, I do believe his decision was wrong on this occasion, although I understand why he made it. To willfully decide to break a treaty he himself signed, was, in modern parlance, throwing caution to the wind. That wind turned into a gale in Europe, but GW needed Europe at that moment in time (as perhaps the reverse may be said now - but that is a very subjective view of course).
Every single American I met last year supported the thrust of what I was there to do - not one put an obstacle in my way - and everyone went above and beyond to achieve the end which materialised. And Lancaster was only part of it - I had the same response, in particular, in Chatham, otherwise I would never have established the significance of Timothy Day and his tavern, which is a first in history, and never previously known. I am absolutely not on a crusade to slaughter George Washington, on any level whatsoever. I am sure my admiration for him is as strong as yours. Why can't you believe that I admire him? Furthermore, I've said it all and I am as tired of saying it over and over as you and everyone else is of hearing it over and over. To my eye there isn't yet nearly enough comprehension as to what is even under discussion. It is a multi-faceted and complicated event and my relationship to Asgill isn't any more my driving force. The fascinating story is what drives me. Would it work if we went back to Dormskirk's final submission and found a different way of expressing "threw caution to the wind"? Do you understand the situation well enough now to accept that he was actitng very unwisely indeed? If not, then I will just leave you to upload your revised draft, with neither of the two most pertinent sources, and I can try to regain a life. Is that a plan? I do know that I have no more strength for the attitudes of some there. I just cannot take more of that. On the other hand I think you might be someone I could work with, and maybe others there too, but I have little strength left for this and, as I say, my passion has now deserted me. But I'd need a bit less of the 'terse' (I have tried to inject humour, even if humour is forbidden on wikipedia) and we would both have to agree to curb our verbosity.
Did I ever tell you that Huddy's Commanding Officer (Colonel Asher Holmes), and Huddy's wife, both pleaded for Asgill's life to be spared? I've said it before, but cannot remember where. I agree there's no rush, but if I do come back, I would have to ask to be treated with a) more respect and b) more kindly. I am pretty fragil over all this now. Dormskirk has not returned to the fray because he was attacked once, but I have found it hard to be amongst totally different viewpoints - entirely alone.
Since you are a Python fan I'll end by saying "he (was) a very naughty man"!Anne (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I see no path forward. I wish you the best. Anastrophe (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree, because I can take no more of this "She could have acted in this capacity long ago but unfortunately it never happened" is the problem. I gave a full quote from two pages of the Journal and the date issue etc. has been quoted endlessly. This is no way to negotiate when one side reads nothing I say. it affects my blood pressure very badly. The other huge problem is that Asgill's letter has nothing to do with the matter in hand. I think what Cordless Larry meant, as much as what he actually said, was that he has a copy of the Journal and, therefore, has not only read Asgill's letter, but will have also seen the two pages I quoted on the GW talk page. Victoriaearle specifically asked me for the page number of Appendix D. I cannot return if this is how it continues to be. Putting on your "reasonable hat" (which suits you admirably I might say) cannot you see what I mean? I am glad I can now begin to get my life back. Anne (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"it affects my blood pressure very badly." This alone, is reason to set it aside for now. Watch a Cricket match. Or some Football. Rugby. Tennis. Polo. Darts. (that's about the extent of my expertise in british sport). Or go to a public arboretum and smell the - I won't say it, so instead - Gardenias. Take in a play, or merely a movie. Those things are valuable, as valuable as anything else, but they won't harm your health. Stress can be an Elephant sitting on your chest. Ask him to move. Anastrophe (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite blockEdit

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You must categorically retract and withdraw any threat of legal action —which you have made on more than one occasion— having written: I have been libelled as well as on another occasion, writing: I would not be too surprised if you find that the Lancaster History people will seek legal guidance of your deliberate removal of groundbreaking new facts. The threat of legal action (or even legal language) creates a chilling effect which is highly disruptive. You are free to pursue any legal recourse you see fit against the project or editors therein, but you cannot remain an editor in good standing while the legal dispute remains outstanding. Finally, to what extent are you part of the "Lancaster History people" and these "groundbreaking new facts"? Because if you have a conflict of interest you must disclose it and operate accordingly. Anyway, good luck and I hope it all works out amicably for everyone involved. Regards, El_C 23:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbil44 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

Ever since first commenting on the George Washington talk page I have been taunted, prodded, and racially abused by Gwillhickers. It was apparently a crime to be "English" from "England" although I think he may have edited that post to tame it down a bit. And others of his posts directed at me have, I believe, been tinkered with as well, since I first saw them. On my talk page Dormskirk also confirms how has been shocked at the abusive attacks directed principally at me, but at him too on his talk page. Gwillhickers has no wish to begin to understand the meaning of the discussion in hand. He has read nothing I have posted, making my efforts to explain the situation impossible. I am now accused of not having provided necessary documentation, and yet I C&Ped two pages from the Journal (the date etc. details of which have been quoted so often it has become boring in the extreme). Victoriaearle saw those pages and requested the page numbers, which I provided, so her post will prove that I supplied supporting documentation. I cannot help the fact that the Journal in question is not online. I offered to email Anastrophe with a copy of the Journal, but that offer was turned down. Cordless Larry has a copy though, and has posted to that effect twice on the George Washington talk page. When Dormskirk was attacked on his talk page I was quick to come to his defence, since he is an experienced and well liked editor and should never have been spoken to as he was. Me, well, that's another matter since I need lots of assistance with IT requirements here, which makes me of little value. I could not have achieved what I have without the help given to me by Dormskirk who has never failed to assist quickly, when needed. My talents do not lie in IT - my speciality is finding letters never before published - 22 so far. My proposed edit to the George Washington page has had the two most important sources removed from the list of references. How can one negotiate in these circumstances? I have no 'relationship' with the Editor and staff at LancasterHistory other than meeting up with them, and knowing them since May 2019. It was impossible for me not to like them, and develop a friendship with them. Is it a crime to like your co-workers during the process of publishing as a co-author, in December 2019? I have been put under enormous pressure on the GW talk page and the latest accusations of not having provided evidence needed is inflammatory in the extreme. I shall not be taking legal action myself, but since I cannot edit now, how do I remove those posts which I was taunted into making when my source material was extracted from the proposed edit? I took great exception to the following (now deleted) post from Timothy Blue as well, which casts unpleasant slurs at the professionalism of LancasterHistory and all the approximately 126 staff who work there, all of whom were involved in the process of publishing a history-changing edition in December 2019. The following post will most probably look very garbled (it looks garbled now before publishing) and it was forwarded on immediately to LancasterHistory's Editor. He was extremely concerned at the content and tone of the message. I have no idea whether he will wish to take matters further, but that his decision, not mine. The post, made on 17 February 2020, was highly inflammatory. An unconditional prisoner = one who can be hanged and who is not subject to protection by the 14th Article - GW's letter of 3 May did not violate any treaty - hence it was submitted for publication A conditional prisoner = one protected by the 14th Article - GW's letter of 18 May violated this treaty, signed by him, hence why it was not submitted for publication. After miles and miles of typing, all other aspects of my life having gone to pot, do editors finally know what this discussion is about? I have been stressing 'conditional' and 'unconditional' from the outset, assuming editors would know the difference, or, if not, find out. Anne (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC) The whole topic about missing letters, what letters were omitted, when they were discovered, when they were published, etc. is historical trivia unless there is evidence that it has some significance from RS (not merely an opinion from one hard to obtain article by unknown authors in an obscure journal from a local historical society). "everything ever written about The Asgill Affair has been overtaken by events and The Asgill Affair has now been re-written in the Journal of December 2019." Opinion (and imo hyperbole). One article by unknown authors in an obscure local historical journal that has not been peer-reviewed is a footnote that will be most likely forgotten. If I'm wrong it will be all over mainstream historical journals and then the case can be made that this is somehow important. "Who on earth cannot draw from that that Washington was covering up his lawbreaking orders?" - Myself. No cover-up took place. It was a publicly known, discussed, and written about in newspapers. It was recorded in others' letters. It was discussed in Congress and Royal courts. There are a dozen reasons this letter may have been omitted (all of which are opinion and don't belong here). If Washington didn't want this letter discovered for some reason, he would have destroyed the letter, not kept it. "that a cover up took place and, consequently, history has been skewed." - You can't cover up something that is already widely known and documented. History has not been skewed. No new information is brought to light by the omission of and later discovery of this letter. Allegations of such are opinion. "the totally new revelations that (a) Washington ordered that conditional officerS were to draw the lots" - Not new at all. This was all very widely known, written about and discussed (including in Congress and in Royal Courts). and (b) Four years later failed to include that letter for publication." The only reason this is "important" is if your opinion is Washington himself intentionally omitted the letter for the purpose of trying to cover something up. You can't cover up something that is already widely known and documented. "GW's letter of 18 May violated this treaty, signed by him," - Already known. "hence why it was not submitted for publication." - Opinion not supported by any evidence. "A conditional prisoner = one protected by the 14th Article - GW's letter of 18 May violated this treaty, signed by him," - Again already known. "hence why it was not submitted for publication." Again opinion not supported by evidence. The idea that this was somehow a "cover-up" is a POV opinion. // Timothy :: talk Anne (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline this inappropriate WP:WALLOFTEXT as you have a second unblock request below, which I'll review. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is this unblock request so lengthy and unfocused? You were asked to do two things: to categorically withdraw any threat of legal action. Let's say that I take your "I shall not be taking legal action myself" statement to satisfy that requirement, there is still the matter of your conflict of interest. You are unlikely to be unblocked until you set out how you're going to approach editing on Wikipedia under the terms of that guideline. El_C 01:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbil44 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

I confirm that I will not be taking legal action against Wikipedia or its members. However, I have been constantly and deliberately provoked during the course of negotiations by Gwillhickers (who does not appear to yet understand what is under discussion) and, should you be interested to know more about how, when (and by whomsoever else), I can provide further details. It is not possible to negotiate under these circumstances and discussions have also been insulting to the reputation of Lancaster History, which is also a museum [10]. This organisation has suffered several slurs regarding its reputation on the GW talk page (especially in a now deleted post by Timothy Blue on 17 February 2020). Its publication [11] has also been removed as the main (and sole source), for the matter in hand. I’ve been there – know the Editor and my co-author personally as co-workers – and have been dealing with them since this time last year when I first began planning my research trip to America. It is well known that I am a descendant of Charles Asgill. Anne (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I stopped reading at "However, I have been constantly and deliberately provoked". WP:GAB will explain how to craft an acceptable unblock request. Talk about your actions, which were inappropriate, not those of other editors. You'll also need to specifically deal with WP:COI. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Arbil44 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

I confirm that I will not be taking legal action against Wikipedia or its members. I trust that Wikipedia will forgive me for any transgressions I have perpetrated, but I was only trying to save the reputation of Lancaster History [12]. Its publication [13] has been removed as the main (and sole source), for the matter in hand. I’ve been there – know the Editor and my co-author personally as co-workers – and have been dealing with them since this time last year when I first began planning my research trip to America. It is very well known that I am a descendant of Charles Asgill, but I write on Wikipedia 'encyclopaedia pages' in a neutral fashion.Anne (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Second chance granted per assurances provided below. El_C 20:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Anne, again, you need to read the conflict of interest guideline closely —please demonstrate that you have done so— and then set out how you're going to edit accordingly. What changes do you plan to make with the manner in which you edit, specifically? You've consistently failed to address this through repeated unblock requests, a failure which, at some point I'm sorry to say, will be viewed as tendentious. Thanks and good luck. El_C 19:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
I have disclosed this
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
A long time ago Cordless Larry and Dormskirk, both of whom know me well, told me to get on and edit pages myself. However, they have both kept a very close eye on all that I do and often have to help me out with the IT involved.
• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;
Cordless Larry specifically told me that so long as I behaved myself, which I do when editing, that I did not have to do the request edit process any more
• you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
My IT skills are so utterly rubbish that I would have no idea whatsoever how to create a new article. Dormskirk has created several new pages, at my request, because he knows I would make a total mess of it. Most people here know that I am 75 years old.
I do hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. Anne (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne, not every reply here needs to be in the form of an unblock request — you should not have more than one of these requests go live at any one time. Anyway, the last bullet point in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing reads: you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise (bold in the original). I submit that you have been falling short of that; that your participation in discussions has involved rather lengthy comments. Are you prepared to start substantially condensing these in future? That's on the discussion front. On the editing front, you are actually conflict of interest-adding material directly to articles. You need to provide assurances that you will keep such additions in check from now on. El_C 19:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see my userpage. I wanted to leave Wikipedia on 13 February but had to return because of the negotiations still unresolved. I will not, under any circumstances whatsoever, be returning to those negotitions. I am happy to leave it to others to "go there" without my input. I do not wish to be involved here more than is absolutely necessary. I will try my utmost to keep posts short, but it is difficult sometimes not to be simply "myself" the way God made me. I will make sure that I use the "edit request" in future, especially since I have no wish to be here for one split second longer than I will need to be. I have some "unfinished business" to attend to, and then I shall leave you all alone on a permanent basis. Anne (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Anne, your userpage is lengthy, what am I looking for there? I should note that I've received complaints that your userpage is promotional and that you are, in fact, using Wikipedia as a webhost. Anyway, the problem with especially lengthy comments is that they come across as bludgeoning. So please refrain from this by keeping it concise from now on. You don't have to leave the project, but you cannot keep conducting yourself in the same manner you've been accustomed to so far. Good news: I have unblocked you, but please keep these assurances in mind while engaged on Wikipedia, because there is unlikely to be a third chance. Good luck. El_C 20:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I only meant for you to look at the first two quotes right at the top of the page. Trust me, I want to leave, really badly, since my expertise on the subject isn't of any value here. My userpage is about the work I have undertaken for the past 18 years, and more particularly the past year. I have been published on that work. Why would I not include that? There has been no financial gain for me since I have been unpaid. It also provides "background information" which would not be included in encyclopaedic pages. It is "proof" that I did what I did. I would have thought that including things like my husband being Head of Mission in Tehran during the American Hostage Crisis just might have been of general interest too. It was a difficult time for us, then, as well. Anne (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Anne, you're welcome. But please note that promotional does not necessarily need to involve monetary gain. Personally, I am quite lenient when it comes to autobiographical material on userpages (in relation to a user's contributions to the project, I should stress), so though I have no immediate intention of enforcing you to redact anything from there, please note that there are likely admins out there who might. Indeed, I could see how the Iran hostage crisis was a traumatic event for your family. Thank you for sharing your experience. It is of interest, to me, at least. Best wishes, El_C 21:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk page protocolsEdit

Hi, per your edit at Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet#On Anne's quote per plays. Talk pages are not a continuous discussion punctuated by section headings. Rather, each section heading represents a separate discussion on a separate subject. This then allows each separate issue to be discussed and resolved without the confusion of "other issues" detracting from the pursuit of such a resolution. This does not diminish the significance of such "other issues". It is simply a matter of partitioning such issues such that they might be effectively managed.

I am going to move some of your edits/posts, because to the section where they belong. Could you please follow this protocol. It stops a discussion from being disjointed. This is pretty important stuff. Fondest regards, SSGT (retd), Cinderella157 (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

My fondest regards to you too. I support your plan wholeheartedly. I have also found it confusing. However, I repeat, I am 75 years old, IT illiterate, and am normally shaking like a leaf when I am here. It is so difficult when I am acquainted with the facts and others are not. Anne (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
From what I can see (for the most at least), the other editors at Sir Charles Asgill are working in a positive way. The problem is that you are very impassioned about this and and also have a lot of insider knowledge that hasn't been published. Unfortunately, everbody else can only rely on what has "actually" been published. What is written in the article cannot rely on your insider knowledge. Similarly, your attachment to the subject might make you less objective within the constraints of working in WP. I trust you will recognise this as a guidance and not criticism. Anastrophe has also asked you to read some pages. Their council is sound, well meant and sincere Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

PS is there a techie you could ask about my stuff of "diffs"? I know that you can create a link to a web page. You did that with the new GW book. Do you know how to view history and what has been changed with each edit on a page? Cinderella157 (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cinderella157. I am now finding it all much too difficult and honestly think I should turn off all notifications and go away. I am the world expert on this (!) and yet have to watch people change from "angered" to "perturbed" which doesn't even begin to touch on the truth. In fact, on the GW talk page, it was clear nobody had even heard of Asgill before. So I have to watch editors add only half a quote (GW to Dayton) which leaves viewers with only half the truth. I added two references only today, pertaining to the matter relating to the French plays - one of which has far wider implications, and yet that is still up in the thread above. While I can see that you are trying to help, I know that I am not cut out for wikipedia and it is really better I walk away now and try to save my sanity. I will now turn off my notifications and be done with it all. But thank you once more. It has always been lovely dealing with you and Dormskirk. Goodbye. Anne (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)