User talk:Groupuscule/Archive

Your edits to Johns Hopkins University on May 9, 2012

Hey Groupuscule, could you please clarify why you added the {{Unbalanced}} and {{Advert}} templates to Johns Hopkins University with this edit? According to Wikipedia's policy for tagging articles, "anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag." I saw that a previous editor removed your tags earlier, and I would like to help you avoid the frustration of having future editors removing your tags if you have an important issue to address.

If you have a general issue that you want to address, then please be helpful by leaving a message on Talk:Johns Hopkins University so that other editors can know how we can fix the article. Per WP:TAGGING, even if the problem is obvious it's useful to leave a short note on the talk page describing the issue, and suggesting an approach to fixing it if you know how. If you leave a comment on the talk page, then other editors will be welcoming and help you address the article's problems.
If you have a more specific issue, then feel free to use some of the section-specific templates or inline templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Inline templates are particularly helpful because they allow you to place captions within the text itself,(example: ^{[neutrality is disputed]}) thus increasing the chances that the problems with the article will be noticed/fixed.
Even better, if you spot a particular error in the article and know how to fix it, then be bold and fix the mistake directly by editing Johns Hopkins University.
If you are unsure which tags to use or how to use them, then Wikipedia:Responsible tagging provides helpful advice about how to maximize the likelihood that other editors will be able to address your concerns and fix the article's mistakes.

In general it is best to provide the fewest number of the most specific possible tags. Placing tags on an article is not a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself. Thank you for your edits, and feel free to leave your concerns on Talk:Johns Hopkins University. If you need help doing this, then you may read Help:Using talk pages or Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for assistance. --Apollo1758 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Apollo, but you'll notice we did leave a message on the Talk page. Granted there is more work to be done here, but it will take a little research. We don't use these flags lightly—in fact this is the only page where we've added them. Groupuscule (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my mistake! I forgot to check there and I read the article that you linked to. I agree that the page should detail the university's controversial relationship with the Baltimore community, including its actions in East Baltimore. But just try to be more explicit next time; it looks like maybe you can try flagging the History section for being unbalanced and creating a new Controversies section related to the university's controversial relation to the community. Though feel free to take your time to address the article's issues. --Apollo1758 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Help:Citation tools

Try Help:Citation tools --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Again

Here's the link: WikiProject:Pollution --Ne0 (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in this: Aam Aadmi Party --Ne0 (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Felon vs. Ex-Felon

I only made the change for sake of accuracy. In a standard dictionary, "felon" is listed as a noun meaning a person who has committed a felony. "Ex-felon" generally will not be found in a dictionary. Of the two, the word listed in a dictionary is preferable in Wikipedia for obvious reasons. Even if "ex-felon" were a standard English language word, its meaning presumably would be a person who was formerly a felon. In the edited articles, this would be an inaccurate term to use, as the people addressed by that word are, in fact, felons - not people who were once convicted of a felony but then had that status changed so that they are no longer felons, as by an appellate court or a pardon. Using "felon" is not judgmental; it is the simplest and most accurate and specific term for what it means, and in fact is a rather sterile term that avoids connotations that come from terms such as "criminal" or "offender". "Felon" is also the term that is almost universally used by courts and statutes in addressing this class of people, and in most of those articles, the term is used because of its legal relevance: felons deprived of the right to vote by operation of law due to their felon status; difficulty in securing or retaining employment due to being a felon; etc. It is the most appropriate and useful term for what is communicated in those articles.

I would reiterate what the dictionary says as being the strongest authority on this topic, but I also want to share a few thoughts generated by your most recent discussion of this subject on my page. Your citation for negative connotations of the word "felon" ("evil, bad, immoral") cites its infrequent adjective form. In each instance we're discussing, the word was used as a noun, and as a simple, objective noun, signifying that the person or persons in question were convicted of a felony, and nothing more. If you want to differentiate between people who are incarcerated and those who are not, the term to use would generally be "prisoner", or in some instances "inmate". "Ex-felon" is not an accurate term to describe all (or even most) people who were formerly prisoners.

But I would suggest something else to consider. You are right that felons face stigma in society, but using a different but less accurate or precise word to describe them on Wikipedia isn't appropriate, even (or perhaps especially) if motivated by a good faith intention to lessen or combat that stigma, including for reasons I didn't mention earlier. I'd suggest that using the term "ex-felon" in place of the more accurate term "felon" will for some people confuse the issue - especially those who are casual readers or not invested or particularly interested in the issue. Using the term "ex-felon" indicates that felons somehow escape their felon status and the stigma and social disabilities that go with it, but as we know, for the vast majority of felons, that does not happen. Using that inaccurate term "ex-felon" could lead readers to the easy (as written) but inaccurate conclusion that felon status is not usually an inescapable lifelong designation, but instead something that is temporary. Perhaps worse, it could indicate to many readers that felons are prisoners and ex-prisoners are ex-felons, and therefore the stigma and disabilities borne by felons are only borne by prisoners. That, I think, would be at odds with the concerns you've mentioned.

I hope you'll give these comments some thought especially as they relate to your concerns about judgmental reading, conclusions drawn and recognition of obstacles faced by felons (often or usually for life). I'm not sure we're really at cross-purposes here, as you might have initially supposed.

Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

While I don't necessarily have an objection to that individual edit, the user behind the IP is a serially blocked user who's been plaguing articles on the assassinations of Lincoln, King and Kennedy with some useful edits, some pointless, and a lot of "alleged assassin" edits for the past year and a half. They're currently on a spree of inserting unsupported commentary on Lincoln's death, and they've been spamming their Kennedy conspiracy theory site. Blocked means they can't edit, period, so they've been reverted when discovered. Sometimes that means reverting useful edits, and you're free to reinstate if you wish, but please review edits from that 92.x.x.x range very carefully. I tried to give them a break last week on the condition that they abide by sourcing, NPOV, etc., and they abused my trust, so I've lost what sympathy I had. Acroterion (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The edit in question clarified that relevant witnesses saw King's shooting, not his death. A subsequent edit changing 'claim' to 'believe' is less obviously reasonable. Shalom, groupuscule (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Allahabad

This article has been rewritten.But i feel there is some problem in article.Please help through copy editing .Thank you 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 09:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be my pleasure! I'll give it a go in a few hours. groupuscule (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am back and will be able to reply your queries regularly.Please ask on article's talk page if you have any doubt regarding topics.dont forget to leave a message on my talk page after completing copy editing Thanks --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

James B. Carey

Thank you for the encouragement. I realized that he had a library named for him but little notice. He was so impt. to mid-20th century unionism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's Paul POV information

The quote is garbage and needs to be neutral. Otherwise, it's just POV pushing. ViriiK (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that there are a lot of eager Paul supporters on the web and that their ideal page on the RNC would probably not be weighted well. And I'm totally open to the idea of changing or removing that particular quotation. But removing a whole section on rule changes that exclude Paul from the convention? Posting to the talk page without waiting for discussion? Immediately reverting back to your own edit after a compromise has been attempted? I find these edits be pretty inappropriate. Indeed, your general pattern of edits to the page hardly seems to reflect 'neutrality'. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Swift raids

I have approved your DYK nomination for the Swift raids article but have suggested that the image is not used. Your comments would be welcome. If you do want the image used you need to include the word (pictured) in the hook somehow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you're right about the picture. It's just a stock photo of a badge, not a picture of the event itself. groupuscule (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your spam whitelist request

Thank you for making a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am sorry that it has taken this amount of time to attend to your request. Please be advised that we have been unable to close your request based on the information supplied. Please visit the whitelist request page and search for your name or the site you requested where you will see details of what additional information is required. Please note that replies here or on my talk page will not be taken into account. Please also note that if no information is received within two weeks from now, your request may be treated as withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, "Stifle". I responded over at the request in question. I am really frustrated with the censorship that is being built into the cite. groupuscule (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

"Latin@s"

I'm sorry, but "Latin@s" is an extremely awkward and clumsy way of solving something which is not a problem with the English language at all, and which I doubt very much is any kind of prevalent Spanish-language practice (considering that padres is the Spanish word for "parents", and reyes the word for "king and queen"). The German "-Innen" thing is also quite awkward, but it attempts to solve an actual problem in the German language, while "Latin@s" isn't related to any difficulty in the English language itself. Some might call it phoney political correctness run amok; I'll just say that it glaringly calls attention to itself far more than it fulfills any valid or useful function. Furthermore the at-sign is the typewriter or 7-bit ASCII solution, while Wikipedia uses Unicode... AnonMoos (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

AnonMoos, I think you are right about some of the disadvantages of "Latin@". It has become a fairly popular term in recent years because it quickly refers to a group of people (from Latin America) without using a male-gendered word as the default for referring to males and females. I would strongly prefer to avoid the use of a male-gendered term to describe a people in general—and I'd even say I don't mind it if the solution to this problem 'calls attention to itself' a little bit, since 'neutral' terminology has the tendency of reinforcing a viewpoint which is not neutral at all (i.e. 'the people' are primarily the men). I do agree that "Latin@" may be confusing, and you're right that the at-sign may be typographically inappropriate on Wikipedia and (on search engines). Can we come up with a better alternative? —Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The English language simply doesn't have many sex-specific nationality terms, other than obsolescent semi-relics (which now often sound pretentious and/or offensive and/or like they belong more to journalistic jargonese than ordinary spontaneous language), such as "Parisienne", "Jewess", "Frenchwoman" etc. The form "Latino" is definitely not sex-specific in the plural in the Spanish language (consult padres, reyes etc.), so why on earth should it be imported into the English language as a strictly and exclusively male-only term -- something which creates far more problems than it solves?? The whole question of "Latin@s"[sic] simply doesn't arise unless you try to force English to become "more Spanish than Spanish itself" and import a Spanish distinction into English in a way that's rather unnatural and artificial for English, and then enforce this distinction in a way which actually doesn't occur in Spanish... I'll freely admit we have problems with linguistic sexism in English (double meaning of "man" etc.), but trying to force Spanish distinctions into English in a way which does not fit with the spirit of the English language (and is not in fact the way things are done in Spanish itself), and then applying the at-sign "solution" to the problem which has been artifically created, strikes me as being pointless in the extreme... AnonMoos (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Many Western languages don't have "sex-specific nationality terms", or, more accurately, legitimately sex-neutral nationality terms, because patriarchy has been in effect for a long time. (Padre - pater - patriarch - patriotism etc. etc. etc.) I don't think this justifies patriarchy or its linguistic relics. I don't want to distort language to unrecognizability, particularly on this encyclopedia, but I do think we should seek out terms that are more legitimately gender-inclusive. How do you feel about Latino/Latina? groupuscule (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Foreign gender distinctions imported into English are somewhat exotic, and usually don't last all that long in common usage (blond/blonde, confidant/confidante, fiancé/fiancée etc). If in Spanish usage "Latinos" can refer to both genders in the plural, but "Latinas" can't, so that "Latino" is the more general term than "Latina", then that's really a problem with the Spanish language, not with the English language -- as seen from the fact that this same Spanish pattern applies to cases like "padres" and "reyes" which have no parallel in English. My guiding principle is that English should not be made to suffer for the sins of Spanish -- English already has its own long-standing problems, but new problems should not be created by trying to inappropriately apply Spanish rules to English... AnonMoos (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Baltimore photos

Thank you so much for taking them! Do you want me to give more suggestions for images? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I like the idea of Wikimedia community across places. So please suggest away. (Prison food might be difficult, though.)groupuscule (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Here is a list:

Baltimore
- File:Mitchellcourt.JPG needs to be moved to the Commons
- Maryland Department of Planning headquarters: 301 West Preston Street, Suite 1101, Baltimore, MD 21201
- ~~Baltimore City Public Schools headquarters: 200 E. North Avenue Baltimore, Md. 21202~~ - File:Balto ed building.jpg
- Baltimore City Fire Department headquarters: 401 E. Fayette Street Baltimore, MD 21202
- Baltimore Police Department headquarters: 242 W. 29th St. Baltimore, MD 21211-2908
- Maryland State Department of Education headquarters: 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201
- ~~Maryland State Highway Administration headquarters: 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, MD 21202~~ File:State Highway Administration Box.jpg
Baltimore County
- Rosedale
  - The McDonald's at the 6300 block of Kenwood Avenue - site of the 2011 Rosedale, Maryland beating
- Towson
  - Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services headquarters: 300 East Joppa Road, Suite 1000 Towson, Maryland 21286
  - Baltimore County Public Schools headquarters: 6901 Charles Street Towson, Maryland 21204
Anne Arundel County
- Annapolis
  - ~~Annapolis City Hall - 160 Duke of Gloucester St.~~ File:Annapolis City Hall.JPG File:Annapolis City Hall 2.JPG
  - Annapolis Fire Department - 1790 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Maryland State Archives - Dr. Edward C. Papenfuse State Archives Building - 350 Rowe Boulevard - Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources - 580 Taylor Avenue - Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Budget and Management, Maryland Department of Information Technology, Maryland State Ethics Commission (located on third floor) - 45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - front door.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - side view.JPG File:Department of Budget and Management.JPG File:45 Calvert Street, Annapolis MD 21401 - fourth floor.JPG File:State Ethics Commission.JPG
  - Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Veterans Affairs - 16 Francis Street, 4th Floor - Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Headquarters of the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund - 1750 Forest Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401-4294 - See photo on the website
  - Annapolis Police Department - 199 Taylor Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Anne Arundel County Public Library Annapolis Area Branch - 1410 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401
  - J. Albert Adams Academy - 245 Clay St Annapolis, MD 21401-1000
  - Wiley H. Bates Middle School - 701 Chase Ave Annapolis, MD 21401-1000
  - Eastport Elementary School - 420 5th St Annapolis, MD 21403-2537
  - Georgetown East Elementary School - 111 Dogwood Rd Annapolis, MD 21403-2701
  - Germantown Elementary School - 1411 Cedar Park Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-3201
  - Walter S. Mills-Parole Elementary School - 103 Chinquapin Round Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-4003
  - Tyler Heights Elementary - 200 Janwal St Annapolis, MD 21403-1919
  - West Annapolis Elementary School - 210 Annapolis St Annapolis, MD 21401-1312
  - St. Mary's High School - 113 Duke Of Gloucester St Annapolis, MD 21401 File:St. Mary's High School.JPG File:St. Mary's High School 2.JPG
  - USPS Annapolis Main post office - 1 CHURCH CIR ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401-9998
  - USPS Legion Avenue post office - 210 LEGION AVE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401-9996
  - USPS Eastport post office - 821 CHESAPEAKE AVE ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403-9998
- Annapolis Neck
  - Annapolis Elementary School - 1399 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD
  - Annapolis Middle School - 1399 Forest Drive Annapolis, MD 21403
- Hanover
  - Headquarters of the Maryland Department of Transportation - 7201 Corporate Center Drive Hanover, Maryland
- Hillsmere Shores
  - Hillsmere Elementary School - 3052 Arundel On The Bay Rd Annapolis, MD
  - Eastport-Annapolis Neck Branch Library - 269 Hillsmere Drive, Annapolis, MD 21403
- Parole
  - Headquarters of Anne Arundel County Public Schools - 2644 Riva Road Annapolis, Maryland 21401
  - Annapolis High School - 2700 Riva Road Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Headquarters of Maryland Department of Agriculture - 50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy, Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Headquarters of Anne Arundel County Public Library - 5 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Annapolis, MD 21401
  - Rolling Knolls Elementary - 1985 Valley Rd Annapolis, MD 21401-6753
  - USPS Naval Academy post office - 1 WILSON RD ANNAPOLIS, MD 21402-1205
- US Naval Academy area
  - Naval Academy Primary School (NAPS) - 74 Greenbury Point Road Annapolis, MD 21402 - It is NOT affiliated with the US DOD

If you take photos in the Washington DC area, I could list those too. The University System of Maryland has its HQ in Adelphi which is in Maryland but in the Washington DC MSA. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, keep 'em coming. Baltimore proper is much easier for me than the county, and I don't get to DC that often, but it will be cool to have a mission when I do go to these places.

Thanks! I'll take a look at the category WhisperToMe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything else in Annapolis? I may visit soon. groupuscule (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I posted a large number - See which ones you want to do, or try them all if you'd like :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions! Now, about the St. Mary's images, did you photograph the main high school? It can be seen at this view - I'm determining to see if St. Mary's Hall belongs to the high school or the church WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want another one, the Howard County Public School System headquarters, is at 10910 Clarksville Pike (Route 108), Ellicott City, MD 21042 - Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

anticommunication

Hello G,

I messed up the format on anticommuincation page -- I need a lesson -- ondixonhill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ondixonhill (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We Shall Overcome authorship issues

Hello Groupuscule,

Please feel free to edit the following entry as you please. I am losing my patience here. I am trying to chalk it up to lack of knowledge about the history of Black Casred music but am starting to get the feelinmg that it is something darker. In any event. I would appreciate if you would help format this enry so it conforms to Wiki "standards" Thank you.

TRUE AUTHOR OF WE SHALL OVERCOME FINALLY REVEALED

In August of 2012, the book "We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue" (ISBN: 978-0615475288), was published. Written by author and 30-year music-industry veteran, Isaias Gamboa, the book proves in extraordinary detail that We Shall Overcome was actually derived from a popular copyrighted Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills"; written by a Cincinnati, Ohio woman named Louise Shropshire. The evidence in the book clearly demonstrates that Shropshire's song was in fact COPYRIGHTED in 1954, proving her song to be the original source of We Shall Overcome -not Charles Albert Tindley's "I'll Overcome" as has been erroneously alleged for over 52 years. The book also reveals that Louise Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey and features never-before-seen photographs of Shropshire with these historical figures. After thorough analysis, prominent musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts have unanimously affirmed these extraordinary discoveries. In addition to the striking musical similarities, Louise Shropshire's lyrics expose and bare witness to this fifty two year old historical innacuracy. Shropshire's lyrics:

                      I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday
                      If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday".

After numerous attempts, in August of 2012, Isaias Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger and in a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Seeger was shown the overwhelming evidence of Shropshire's Music and Lyrics. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is Wonderful" and stated that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history" ^[1]

Possible 'wikified' version of the above:

Authorship of "We Shall Overcome"

A 2012 book by Isais Gamboa (We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue) argues that "We Shall Overcome" should be originated primarily to a popular Baptist hymn entitled "If My Jesus Wills". "If My Jesus Wills" was written and copyrighted in 1954 by a Cincinnati, Ohio, woman named Louise Shropshire. The book includes statements from musicologists, historians, copyright and legal experts. Gamboa also presents evidence that Shropshire was a close, influential friend of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth and Rev, Thomas A. Dorsey.

Shropshire's lyrics:

I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome, I'll Overcome Someday
If My Jesus Wills, I Do Believe, I'll Overcome Someday

Gamboa made contact with Pete Seeger in August of 2012. In a video-taped meeting at Seeger's home in upstate New York, Gamboa showed Seeger the evidence that Shropshire originated the hymn. Without hesitation, Seeger stated "This is wonderful" and stated that Louise Shropshire "should be part of We Shall Overcome's history".^[2]

Response(s)

OK, working on the text here is fine. We can also do on the talk page. The main issue is finding sources. I can't cite from a book I don't have. To cite from the book, the best thing to do is cite page numbers, and maybe even use quotations. If you are Isaias Gamboa (be honest!) it might not be the best thing for you to cite, either. Is the book available in any libraries that you know of, where maybe we could convince another Wikipedian to check them out? Are there relevant passages you could post or send? Or, better still, are there online resources that make the case? I am interested in helping with this and I want to do it right. I'll make a little effort at transforming the above into more encyclopedic language, and maybe you can help me with sourcing. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Some changes above to get the language closer to encyclopedic tone. More references would still be good. I know this may seem watered down. Believe me, I understand what may be borne in those lyrics over 52 years. But this is a type of editorializing that will work better almost anywhere else on the internet than on Wikipedia. groupuscule (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL PRESS FOR GAMBOA BOOK / Hope this helps. P.s. I am Isaias Gamboa and would absolutely prefer for someone else to cite this very important entry. http://www.vibe.com/article/isaias-gamboa-explains-who-wrote-we-shall-overcome http://www.wsbradio.com/Player/101498721/ http://wchbnewsdetroit.com/2426934/book-review-we-shall-overcome-sacred-song-on-the-devils-tongue-by-isaias-gamboa/ http://sundaymorningliveblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/sml-88-99-no-show-labor-day-weekend/ http://www.eurweb.com/2012/10/new-book-reveals-the-untold-history-of-iconic-civil-rights-anthem-we-shall-overcome/ http://www.caribpress.com/2012/10/13/costa-rican-author-isaias-gamboa/

References

[1]
http://www.amazon.com/We-Shall-Overcome-Influential-penniless/dp/0615475280
[2]
Gamboa, Isaias (2011). We Shall Overcome: Sacred Song on the Devil's Tongue. Gamboa Music Group Publications. ISBN 978-0615475288.

collaboration

Re: Barnstar of Diligence

Wikipedia:Peer review/Egyptian mythology/archive2

Thank you

Jews = Middle Eastern

Logical consequence

Greetings. Can we interpret your remarks as supporting the move from "entailment" to "logical consequence?" This issue has plagued that article for a long time now, and I would like to move forward with it. Would you be willing to clarify your position by appending Support to your remarks? It is not clear at all that it will work at all out yet. Anything you could do to help move it forward would be greatly appreciated. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really surprised that no one has weighed in on this question. But in fact I would suggest re-splitting, creating a new article for logical consequence or logical implication (I'm curious to learn why you prefer the former) and leaving "entailment" for anyone who wants to work on it as such (as some sort of 'relationship between sentences and operators' and not simply a logical operation). And in the process excise content from the 'entailment' page present and past that would be more appropriate for the new consequence (or implication) page. groupuscule (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support having two articles for the same concept, but even so; I had tried spliting the content into a newly expanded logical consequence article. However, my contribution was reverted. So there is a political environment going on here that we have to overcome. The original move was done without consensus, and my proposal to move it back failed because I didn't lay out a big case (in my mind it should have been very clear). I prefer the term "logical consequence" because it is more common in the scholarly literature (65k v 53k on google scholar). Furthermore, most of the most notable experts, (Quine, Carnap, Tarski, Russell, others) use the term "logical consequence" as well as all four of the reference resources I provided. This should be a slam dunk, and I really would like it resolved after years of being hindered by it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Greg Bard (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to create too much of a factionalist split among those wishing to change the current hegemony of the "entailment" article, but: not only is that not a very big difference, on Scholar, but also many of those articles refer to X as a "logical consequence of" Y; whereas "logical implication" unambiguously refers to the operation taking place. Eh? I mean, this page looks very nice, as someone mentions on entailment talk; why not simply restore that?

No, I don't support "logical implication" at all. I have never seen it used in any of the literature I have studied. I think the main supporting issue is the use of "logical consequence" by the other philosophy reference resources (SEP, InPho, IEP and PhilPapers). I have communicated with the editors of these resources, and I would like to have the philosophy department at WP as consistent with them as possible, and that is what I have been working on.Greg Bard (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Added a comment explicitly supporting the move to "logical consequence". groupuscule (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Nomination of Feminist Africa for deletion

Thanks

DYK

DYK review (The Making of a Teacher)

Pyramid Mound

DYK for Martin Luther King, Jr., Records Collection Act

DYK review and comments

Basically...

Template:Did you know nominations/Civil Rights Congress

Re: Malas & The Dream @ DYK

DYK Vernon C. Bain Correctional Center

Jane Jacobs

The Epic Barnstar

United States v. Morrison

Assistance requested for an RfC/U

Thanks!

Template:Did you know nominations/Human rights movement

A kitten for you!

Replaceable fair use File:A. F. James MacArthur on WOLB.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:A. F. James MacArthur on WOLB.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I put the "disputed" tag on there because I see no way of finding a comparable free use image. Obviously a free image would be preferable but I'm not sure how to find one. (As you can see, MacArthur is incarcerated and incommunicado.) Please let me know if you have any ideas! Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Zizek tags

Signature

Peer review of C-SPAN

Hi there Groupuscule, I found your name on the Peer review/volunteers page and am hoping that you might be interested in reviewing the C-SPAN article for me. With this peer review I hope to prepare this article for submission for Featured article review. Would you be interested in helping with this? If you have the time to review the C-SPAN article, please do so. The peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/C-SPAN/archive1.

A little background on the project: I have been working on this article off and on for several years now, expanding and improving the article as part of my role as a consultant to C-SPAN. I should note that prior to December 2011 I did make direct edits to the article, but now, given my COI, I strictly follow Jimbo's "bright line" rule and only participate in Talk page discussion. Since I won't be editing this article directly it is my plan to make a copy of the current article in my user space and make any suggested changes there. This way we can review the changes once I've finished reviewing feedback and can discuss replacing the current article with my updated and corrected draft.

Thank you for taking the time to read my request. I'd really appreciate it if you were interested in reviewing this article. Please let me know. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon. Aloha groupuscule (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'm currently working on a version offline, implementing the citation-focused feedback I received recently. However, since those comments were so narrowly focused, I could use some feedback on content and structure, when you're able. Let me know if you have any questions! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, Groupuscule. I wanted to let you know that I believe my Peer review request for the C-SPAN article is likely to be archived any day now. I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that requests without new feedback for two weeks are archived, and I think I'm just about at that point. Anyhow, if you still would like to review it I would appreciate the help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, saw you'd done the review, and looks quite thorough—thanks! I'll get to work on it this week, and hope to make some updates (to my userspace draft, of course) soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

More information My dumb mistake, please ignore ...

My dumb mistake, please ignore

The following warning was erroneously and hastily issued by me, Grolltech, and I have struck it. Groupuscule, please accept my apologies, and feel free to blank this section from your page.

Your addition to Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The very first phrase I searched for in google, and what do you know? It's copy/pasted directly out of a book! http://books.google.com/books?id=f-UQWNPD5qgC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=%22So+desperate+was+he+to+make+his+amendment+the+final+version+that+he+challenged+the+well-accepted+custom+of+sending+proposed+amendments+to+the+Judiciary+Committee.+His+Republican+colleagues+would+hear+nothing+of+it.%22&source=bl&ots=qwu-CJibQY&sig=p5YRqbmTtT3DzR4XkWDR_HZwXeg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HEfAUYOgBojs0gGok4GACw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&f=false

~~STOP IMMEDIATELY OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED OR BANNED FROM EDITING.~~ ~~—Grollτech (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)~~

Close

You realize that Groupuscule put that in quotation marks and clearly cited it? I'm not sure why you're immediately escalating to shouting about a ban. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that about 10 minutes ago, as my jaw hit the floor. Groupuscule| (and Khazar2), please accept my sincere apologies. I am deeply sorry. I have just struck the above as best as I know how at the moment... I would blank it completely, but I don't believe that I can. You may freely blank it yourself if you desire. —Grollτech (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Grolltech, it's all good. I really appreciate that you are trying to stop plagiarism on Wikipedia. You are not the first editor to be fooled by my footnote quotations, which are much less obvious in diff view then at the article itself. I do think the quotations are quite useful, especially when they come from books, so I continue to use them even though they invade the Wikitext a bit. Thank you once for your intervention and thank you again for your apology, which of course I accept. Peace, groupuscule (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Yes, it was indeed the diff view... and what really alarmed me next was when I looked at your contribs and saw just how many very large edits you had done in such a short period of time — I felt like I was running along the tracks to catch a train that had left hours ago. For example, I saw that you created a 28,000-byte, well-written Supreme Court article in the span of a half hour – which should have been my first clue. I don't know why I didn't conclude – as any sane, logical person would have – that you had prepped the article in advance. My only defense is that it was early, and I hadn't had my coffee yet, and I was already in red alert mode from the 13th Amendment article. But I've created 4th Amend. Supreme Court articles (Florida v. Jardines, Florida v. Harris, and Soldal v. Cook County) – and they took a LOT of time – and yes, I created them offline.

So, I try to learn something every day (before I use up my 5 minutes allotted for thinking), and today I did just that. I learned that no matter how much of an "urgent" matter I think it is, it's ok to slow down, because everything can be undone, and nobody's gonna die if the "offender" isn't stopped right this second. And for that, I thank you. —Grollτech (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work!! Liking the inclusion of arguments from amicus briefs. salve, groupuscule (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In case you were not aware

A barnstar for you!

Category:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

This has nothing to do with anything,

nominating for GA

Going for the hat trick

Following up on C-SPAN peer review

DYK for Jacobo Timerman

Scott McNealy of Sun on privacy

DYK for 40 acres and a mule

C-SPAN (second try)

A pussy for you!

Template:Did you know nominations/Badger flea

Did you know nom – Homeless Bill of Rights

Incomplete section on Black Codes article

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Right. I'm going to take this one on. From having done the Fourteenth Amendment yesterday, I know these sort of articles get rather complex, so I just want to claim this one before I start, lest all my work is lost. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam. I'll be off Wikibreak tomorrow and will dive into this one, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Would it be worth briefly summarising the Twelfth Amendment when it's mentioned? Something like "...more than sixty years had passed since the last amendment to the Constitution (the Twelfth, which revised the rules for electing President and Vice-President) had been successfully ratified."? Or is that getting too off-topic? Use your judgement, I suppose. I've done a little copyediting of my own.

I think it may be a little too much detail for the lead, but I don't have strong feelings about it either way. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. One possibility might just be to wikilink "the last amendement to the constitution" and leave out the parenthetical. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tried that out. See what you think, feel free to revert. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I found it a little comical in our previous draft to point out that the Twelfth Amendment was the one that preceded the 13th. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Slavery in the United States

I'm not quite sure what the term "sectional tensions" is meant to mean. Tension between sections of the country? Best to clarify.

Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

This sentence is incredibly unclear: "The American Colonization Society, in contrast, called for the emigration and colonization of African American slaves, who were freed, to Africa." I think this is referring to the split in the abolitionist movement between integration and emigration, but the next sentence states that it was an alternative to abolition, so I really don't know. Make this clear, please. Also, isn't "African-American" hyphenated when used as an adjective?

Style on that hyphen varies, in my understanding (this has come up before in my professional work). I recently consulted the MOS about this and didn't find any specific reference.

As for the ACS, I don't think it's correct to call them a branch of the abolitionist movement. It included some abolitionists but also many Southerners who just wanted to ship off free blacks while maintaining slavery. Eric Foner, the source for this material, describes them as separate and opposing movements. But I'll admit I'm not deeply read on the ACS, just following my source. Is there a source you could suggest as an opposing view? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Took another pass at clarifying this this morning. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I poked at it a bit myself. I didn't want to go into too much detail, but I think that explaining a little bit about it helps. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"As the country continued to expand, the issue of slavery in its new territories became the dominant national issue." - "the" implies it was the only dominant issue; wouldn't it be better to say "a dominant national issue"? I mean, it was pretty big, and the Bleeding Kansas events it inspired were a major cause of the Civil War, but it seems...

Sorry, I just wrote a paragraph contrasting the subtle variations in meaning between "a" and "the". I'll just change it.

I hope you don't mind, but I restored the original phrasing, which seems to me a more accurate summary of our reliable source: "The issue of slavery in the territories became the defining issue in the years that followed." (emphasis Goodwin's) To be clear, do you think the sentence isn't a fair summary of Goodwin, or do you just disagree with Goodwin? As above, I'm fine with looking at other sources for opposing views. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's definitely what the source says, I'm fine with it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing! I appreciate the assistance and feedback. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier proposed amendments

This section seems mis-placed. It comes between the history leading to the thirteenth amendment, and the actual passing. It should either come right after the lead, or right at the end of the article, in my opinion.

Good idea--

Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And that appears to be it for me. References look food, so once the things above are fixed, I think we have a GA. I'm open to reasonable compromises if any of my suggestions are stupid.

Also, I have made some copyedits while reviewing. If you care to check I haven't changed anything inappropriately, here's the batch diff for all of them. . Individual justifications are in the edit summaries for the individual edits. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Going back in now for a (hopefully final) review. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

For something that had to combine a history of slavery with politics and constitutional law, this was already extremely good before I came here. There were a few bits to work through, but they were a tiny, tiny proportion of the article, and everyone involved here deserves a lot of praise. I would hope you take this to FA, although you may want to get one or more experts to review it first - I am not a constitutional expert, nor a lawyer, nor anything more than an amateur historian, after all. Pass Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

yes but slavery was ended. Try 14th Amendment. Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Anti-Muslim violence in India: Revision history View logs for this page

A barnstar for you!

Copy editor needed stat!

C-SPAN at FAC

Million Award

Article Feedback Tool update

Help in userification of Willpower_paradox

Take pictures of Baltimore for Wikipedia on September 21

Re: Welcome, African-American Civil Rights Movement

Thank you!

Birmingham crisis

Hi Groupuscule. Glad you like the edit-I started it before I even realized you were the originator of the page! Thank you for putting it together.

I'm curious to know why the title "Birmingham crisis" was chosen though. The reason I ask is because that term doesn't seem to appear much, if at all, in the literature on the event, either academic or journalistic. It's almost always referred to as the "Birmingham riot" or "riots in Birmingham". I suppose it could be argued that the historically notable event here is BOTH the bombings and the riot, yet bombings in Birmingham had been going on for years, and bombings against MLK and his associates had also been going on for years. The central and novel event, as the quotes from Malcolm X indicate - as well as the scholarship that I cited show - was the riot. The military mobilization, while unprecedented, was an after effect of the black unrest. The military order was also quite restrained, as the troops were never actually deployed on the streets (the full National Guard deployment on the streets of Cambridge Maryland in June of 1963, is probably more historically significant). I think the real significance of this event is the long-term effect on government policy, including the Civil Rights Act (as well as the long-term effect on movement culture and strategy, which I plan to write more about on the page).

Furthermore, if someone searches on Google for "Birmingham riot 1963," they will not find this page (at least not in the first 40 results)! They will find the "Birmingham campaign" page, which is ironic, since the riot is not supposed to be part of SCLC's campaign.

I'd propose that the title e changed to "Birmingham riot" to conform to the literature and correspond with people's web searches. Either that or the information in the article be fully absorbed into the "Birmingham campaign" page. What do you think? GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, it's so cool that you asked about this; I was actually fixing to ask your opinion of the title.

The story on my end is that I started working on a page just about the bombing. As I did the research I realized it made more sense to include discussion of the various aftermaths: black mobilization, police response, state response, federal response. It no longer seemed appropriate to name the page just after the bombing, but at the same time it didn't occur to me to shift the 'center of gravity' completely. "Birmingham crisis" is a compromise name, plucked somewhat arbitrarily from a couple news reports that used this term.
As for incorporation into "Birmingham campaign" I don't think this would be unreasonable. But it doesn't really fit with our current definition of the "campaign" as a nonviolent SCLC campaign. And it is true that in the popular literature (though not in McWhorter) these storylines are basically treated as separate. On a more practical note, we've got lots of material here that would be hard to squeeze in. I do think the Birmingham campaign page could use some sensible revisions (like was there really "Resolution"? And what concretely happened in Birmingham over the next few years?)
"Birmingham riot" would be a pretty good name. Although I don't like the term "riot", I did convince myself that it was the most well-known name when unilaterally creating King assassination riots (a page which, by the way, would certainly benefit from your attention). While I agree that the violence in the streets did not escalate to the level Cambridge, I have seen the Kennedy administration's response (a potential military invasion) to the Birmingham SNAFU described as unique in scale. (Sidenote: that page on Cambridge really needs some work, eh? In my understanding, the situation really went further than a "riot"—it was open war.) Anyway, I think your argument is convincing and I can get behind a move to "Birmingham riot". So, I don't know how many editors are really watching "Birmingham crisis", but you could put up a move notice at the talk page there, or troll around for more opinions on various other relevant talk pages. One way or another, the name really should change.

Thanks again for the terrific work you've been doing. groupuscule (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I'll bring it up on the "Talk" page of "Birmingham crisis" and see what the comments are - look out for it.

Re: Cambridge, I thought for a moment that "Cambridge rebellion" might be a better title there - but as I understand it, a rebellion is planned and a riot is spontaneous and fairly chaotic; in Cambridge, I can believe that Gloria Richardson's team was organized and militant to plan armed engagement, but there's no proof. Maybe more importantly, Cambridge was very chaotic. I'm still trying to parse it out, but it began with whites attacking blacks, blacks fighting back, police backing whites, blacks fighting police, National Guard usurping police, NG negotiating detente with blacks, whites attacking NG, NG negotiating detente with whites, blacks attacking NG, and then both whites and blacks attacking NG because they were all sick of martial law. I think the word rebellion implies something less shifting and more bilateral. Also, as in Birmingham, the word riot appears most often in the literature.

GPRamirez5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi G, I just tried changing the title, but it didn't not go through via the standard editing methods. Do you know how to do this? I would be sure to edit the article, including the capsule sidebar, to correspond to the new concept. GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thank you again for your help on this; another idea though: the infobox should probably be suspended until its edited to fit the new focus (we could both save the html in our sandboxes). In particular, I think there should probably be a new photo that's not of the bombing - the current photo is already on the Birmingham Campaign page anyway. I am interested in using the photo at this page, but I'm not sure if it fits Wikipedia copyright standards. Do you have any idea? GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the infobox now needs changing. I've recently the use of multiple infoboxes in a page, with subsidiary boxes in sections that describe discrete events. So, the "bombing" infobox might belong in that section. Alternatively we can change it. (Remember the code will always live in the article history!) As far as that photo goes, the chances are actually not good that it will work. To use an image according to the community norms, at least one of the following must be true:

(1) It's in the public domain...

(a) ... because it was created by the US federal government. (Internationally, the rules are different. Let's just talk USA here.)

(b) ... because it was created before 1923 and its copyright has therefore definitely expired.

(c) ... because it was created between 1923 and 1964 and its copyright was never renewed.

(d) ... because it was licensed directly into the public domain.

(2) It was licensed into Creative Commons.

(3) No other remotely adequate images are available, and so we'll use it under the "Fair Use" law.

Option (3) is difficult, and there actually are image copyright cops who will come around and delete your upload if they don't think your reasoning is good enough. However, it can work if you can really demonstrate you've exhausted all other options. Option (2) is unlikely, since the image was probably published before Creative Commons existed. Option (1)(d) is similarly unlikely, just because that wasn't done much. That basically leaves us with (1)(c) which is not super common for high-profile news photos, and is also quite difficult to verify. And again, there are copyright cops, and the burden of proof sort of lies with the uploader.

The photo we have now, we're using because it comes from Library of Congress. As you can see from the description in the image file, the photo was donated by USA Today to the LOC ... so it's fair game. Sometimes it's really hard to find a good image. In conclusion: maybe hunt around government documents (e.g. military or DOJ reports on B'ham), and if really nothing turns up, maybe we can use your image under fair use rationale. Aloha, groupuscule (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for your work so far on International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, especially in finding sources. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Long overdue for your topical, thought provoking and genuine efforts, edits, discussions and contributions to Wikipedia! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (estimated annual readership: 1,167,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

	First Prize
	Dear Groupuscule, congratulations for your first-prize-winning entry news in the March 2015 running of the Core Contest. A member of wikimedia UK will be in touch soon with details about the Amazon voucher. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)