Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Capitalisation

I'm nearly gone, don't worry. I think there is some inconsistency in the use of a capital C, or otherwise, in this paragraph: Asgill was appointed Colonel of the 2nd Battalion 46th Regiment of Foot (South Devonshire Regiment) on 9 May 1800[18] and went onto half-pay as the colonel [here we are talking an appointment rather than a rank and it should be a capital C] of a disbanded battalion when the battalion was disbanded in 1802.[19][20] Promoted to lieutenant general in January 1805, he was appointed colonel [again, a capital C] of the 5th West India Regiment in February 1806; Colonel of the 85th Regiment of Foot in October 1806 and Colonel of the 11th Regiment of Foot on 25 February 1807. He was promoted to general on 4 June 1814.[18] Here it is, in my view, correct: "The Duke of York will take over the appointment from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who has been Colonel of the Grenadier Guards since 1975" I noticed that a spell bot ran through this article a few days ago, so that may account for the inconsistencies? Can anything be done? Arbil44 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Chris the speller changed the capitalisation in this edit, and might be able to explain what the correct approach is. MOS:CAPS is the relevant style guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The guidelines are MOS:JOBTITLES and MOS:MILTERMS. Job titles, offices, positions and ranks are all treated the same: no capitalization unless the rank is part of the name.   He has been colonel of the Grenadier Guards,   but   He met General Sir Charles Asgill in Flanders.   I will fix the capitalization in this article. Chris the speller ^yack 20:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I quite understand that my comments will be meaningless, but there is a complete lack of understanding here that the Colonel of the Regiment is a 'position' usually held by an officer of much more senior rank than a 'colonel' in the army, and is not a 'rank' in itself. I think the following Wikipedia article would suggest that the above edit is wrong, and that it is Colonel in this instance: "Colonel of the Regiment The title Colonel of the Regiment (to distinguish it from the military rank of colonel) continues to be used in the modern British Army. The ceremonial position is often conferred on retired general officers, brigadiers or colonels who have a close link to a particular regiment. Non-military personnel, usually for positions within the Army Reserve may also be appointed to the ceremonial position. When attending functions as "Colonel of the Regiment", the titleholder wears the regimental uniform with rank insignia of (full) colonel, regardless of their official rank. A member of the Royal Family is known as a Royal Colonel. A Colonel of the Regiment is expected to work closely with a regiment and its Regimental Association." I seem never to be here without controversy, but I stick to my guns on this. Edited to add - I spent the first 20 years of my life as an army 'camp follower' (I'm sure there will be a Wikipedia article explaining what a 'camp follower' is), and knew several Colonels of the Regiment in that time. Anyone who has no personal knowledge of the army will probably be flummoxed on this, no matter how good a speller they may be! I think the Wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel#Colonel_of_the_Regiment is very accurate Arbil44 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this, Chris the speller? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Colonel (United Kingdom) (which, confusingly, contains much the same text as the Colonel article) also has "By the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars, the title "colonel of the regiment" had become ...", so I'm not the only editor who wants to use lower case for it. Other guidance to keep in mind is WP:SSF, which says that sources with deep knowledge of a subject are not always the final arbiters of the style used in Wikipedia. Per MOS:CAPS, "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence."; "colonel of the regiment" is certainly not a proper name, as there are lots of them. Chris the speller ^yack 03:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is totally and completely wrong - so what is going to happen about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel#Colonel_of_the_Regiment Wikipedia article which completely contradicts Chris the speller? Two Colonels of the Regiment of my father's regiment were 1) Queen Juliana of the Netherlands and 2) Diana, Princess of Wales. Neither women were colonels in the British Army. They held ceremonial positions. Another Colonel of the Royal Sussex Regiment was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashmer_Whistler and he is referred to as "Colonel of the Royal Sussex Regiment". Britain is steeped in antiquated tradition - we have some of the weirdest 'customs' - we have ceremonial office holders going by such names as 'Black Rod' - or would Chris deem that to be 'black rod'? This decision is making me feel physically sick all over again. Cordless Larry, please would you request the originator of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel#Colonel_of_the_Regiment to comment here since clearly this contributor knows entirely what s/he is talking about? I rather suspect their article is about to be culled in the same way my Asgill article was though. Would you also request Spintendo to comment too? I will not take this lying down because "colonel of the regiment" could very well mean "Commanding Officer of the regiment" because that position is held by a colonel - usually a lieutenant colonel. I can see there are several Wikipedia articles which support my theory, including the one I first quoted in my original post about Capitalisation, but will undoubtedly now be culled. Correction: the two royals were Colonels-in-Chief and Whistler was Colonel of the Regiment. Arbil44 (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The London Gazette is the final word on the matter - the relevant PDF is here - SUPPLEMENT TO THE LONDON GAZETTE, 1 JANUARY, 1957 https://www.thegazette.co.uk › London › issue › supplement › data mandant, Royal Regiment of Artillery. General Sir Lashmer Gordon WHISTLER,. K.C.B., K.B.E., D.S.O. (13017), late. Infantry; Colonel, The Royal Sussex. - this one appoints Whistler as 'Colonel of the Regiment'. I am due an apology, since the Gazette is the final word on the matter in every single military matter. Why does every last little thing I request end up with me having sleepless nights, arguing until I am blue in the face, and being told I am wrong (because of COI) when I am right. Does nobody yet know me well enough to know that there is only one thing I care about - and that is for my Asgill article to be RIGHT. It is currently WRONG in the paragraph concerning the regiments of which Asgill was 'Colonel'. Kindly correct this paragraph Cordless Larry. Arbil44 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The other article has been edited by hundreds of people since it was created in 2003, so there's not really an "originator". As for the final word on capitalisation, that belongs to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Of course, as with everything else, the MoS can be changed by consensus, so the best thing to do if you disagree with it is to post your thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. You could cite the London Gazette in support of your case. That would be a more productive approach than taking an article-by-article one. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. If I have made any IT errors in this would you please correct them? So, my wish to leave here, and finally get some sleep, denied me since 21 August, is denied me yet again. This will go on for months I expect. No wonder I have had a nervous breakdown. Arbil44 (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Pending input there, one thing we could do is link the text to Colonel of the Regiment, to help differentiate between the two different meanings of "colonel". Cordless Larry (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes please, Cordless Larry, that would be very helpful. Would you be prepared to take charge of matters (going forward) on the MoS thread? I am feeling so overwhelmed with all that is going on in my life right now, and, furthermore, the latest proofs have just arrived in my inbox. This is the last major edit opportunity before going to the printers. I really do need to concentrate on that now, although there might be just one more brief opportunity later, but the Editor is really gearing up for finalisation as soon as possible. It is an amazing publication. It will, to a very large extent, wipe out everything coming before it. Arbil44 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Can do. Just one thing: whereabouts do you think I should include the link? Are all of the uses of colonel in reference to this Colonel of the Regiment title, or just some of them? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Colonel of the Regiment applies to each and every regiment he was Colonel of - which is all of them in that paragraph. He loved his men of the 11th (and they loved him too - the 11th was unique in the days of conscription in that they all came back from leave and never deserted) and that regiment is included in his will - perhaps that is the one to single out. To me I have always thought of him in the way I knew General Whistler. Bolo Whistler was a very special person indeed. I was only a shy and gawky teenager, but he neve ever failed to oome and say hello to me, even when he was surrounded by either royalty or dignitaries! Also, this is a bit clumsy and could probably be improved: "colonel of a disbanded battalion when the battalion was disbanded". Arbil44 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I've attempted some rewording and have added a link. I've linked the first instance of the term in the reworded paragraph rather than the one you suggested. Generally, we link on the first use of a term, and that's earlier now that I've reworded for clarity. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you've done this Cordless Larry, thank you, but I hope you will allow me to point out that there needs to be a very minor tweak in one or two places? Without going into long explanations I'm going to trust that you follow my train of thought It is actually rather complicated because when it comes to the 46th it was really rather strange that he was given this Colonelcy in the first place - for a 2nd battalion (i.e. we are talking here about Colonels of the Regimeent) - the only reason I can think of is that he raised that battalion himself - it is very unfortunate that you need to make the Wiki link with that because of the unusualness of it - and, in fact, although it made little difference in the meaning of the position (he was still Colonel of the Regiment) because of the unusualness of the situation he was, for the 46th, their "Colonel Commandant". I'm not trying to be difficult here - just wanting it to all be right, and army personnel will spot the difference. There also needs to be one more capital C here: "half-pay as the 'C'olonel of a disbanded battalion." It is really such a shame that 1800 comes before the other Colonelcies when there is this annoying difference with it all. Could you possibly make the link with the 5th regiment? Arbil44 (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - I totally understand where you are coming from on wanting the link to be on the first mention, but could you waive this on this occasion? There really is an anomally with the 46th. He was Colonel of the 11th Regiment of Foot for the rest of his life - that regiment really meant something to him - the other appointments really seem to have been fly by night appointments where no build up of commeraderie is likely to have arisen. Or what about no link to the Colonel of the Regiment Wiki article? Just out of curiosity, why are you willing to make these changes when nobody has even taken the trouble to reply on the other thread? I hope you understand just how very upsetting it has been that Chris the Speller has, like so many before him, insulted me over this matter by saying "sources with deep knowledge of a subject are not always the final arbiters of the style used in Wikipedia" - in other words he threw the COI card at me again, but there will be no need for him to apologise to me - because it is only OK to insult me, never apologise. Also, everyone can see the difference with the Sophia portrait being so much more beautiful because it was a photo I took of the original Hoppner portrait - but nobody has to apologise for the "Hm" comment there either. All the nearly two months work, 24/7, I've put into all of this has been totally soul-destroying. It has brought me to my knees. Nobody has appreciated either my efforts, nor the fact that I've done as I've been told, and, where appropriate, nobody has apologised to me either. Nobody cares what this has all done to me. Is anybody, anywhere, any time going to come to the conclusion that I do not, and never did, deserve to be slapped with the COI card? I know more about Asgill than anyone on the planet and I am not biased nor unreliable nor am I a liar. I only want the page to be correct, and people like Chris the Speller have no place telling me I don't know what I'm talking about - it is he who is totally ignorant. I'll leave you to ponder this while I now get on with my proofs for attention. Arbil44 (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Sources" here refers to published sources such as the London Gazette, not to you as an editor. See WP:RS for an explanation of how the term is used on Wikipedia. The comment had nothing to do with your relationship to the subject of the article. The discussion of the capitalisation has no bearing on whether we can add a link, and I think one is necessary for readers to understand the difference between different uses of the term. We'll have to wait for comments in the other thread before making a decision about the correct capitalisation. I will look at modifying the text in line with your suggestions above when I get time later. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, could I suggest the following wording (while a response is awaited on the MoS thread)? Also, a link to the 11th should be included (and you will find Asgill listed there as Colonel of the Regiment too). "Asgill was appointed Colonel of the Regiment of the 2nd Battalion 46th Regiment of Foot (South Devonshire Regiment) on 9 May 1800[18] and went onto half-pay when it was disbanded in 1802.[19][20] Promoted to lieutenant general in January 1805, he was appointed Colonel of the Regiment of the 5th West India Regiment in February 1806, of the 85th Regiment of Foot in October 1806, and of the 11th Regiment of Foot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonshire_Regiment on 25 February 1807. He was promoted to general on 4 June 1814.[18]" Arbil44 (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. There's already a link to 11th Regiment of Foot, which redirects to Devonshire Regiment. Or did you mean something else? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That's perfect, thank you. I must need new glasses, because the blue coloured text on the 11th looked black to me, and I thought there wasn't a link! Will someone from MoS come along and change what you have done, because it is exactly as it should be now? Second question. Somewhere, don't know where, I think I saw a link which said it was possible for me to save Asgill's page as a book, or did I dream that? If I didn't dream it, is it difficult to do? I would like to preserve the page because, finally, it is right. Arbil44 (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are a couple of options listed under "Print/export" in the menu on the left-hand side of the screen when viewing the article in desktop view. I've never really used them, but I don't imagine it's difficult. I'm not really sure about the capitalisation issue - it's a shame that no one has commented yet, but let's give it some more time. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

OMG - Wikipedia will not allow me to slope away in peace! "Book Creator is undergoing changes. Due to severe issues with our existing system, the Book Creator will no longer support saving a book as a PDF for a short period of time. We are working hard to replace our system and re-enable PDFs within the Book Creator." I hope I remember what you told me to do! Arbil44 (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The other PDF download option still works though. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

After all this effort I rather like the idea of a book though! I'll have to be patient - not my 'strong point' unfortunately! While I'm here, I wonder if "promoted to 'general'" should have a link to what a 'general' is? Not too important, but perhaps a finishing touch? Sorry, I have only just looked at the link to the 11th and I notice that, by the time Asgill was Colonel, it had changed its name slightly to The 11th (North Devonshire) Regiment. Arbil44 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry for dealing with the above. Could you please tell me what Ehrenkater hss done - which appears to be a lot, but none of it means anything to me. They are, anyway, commenting on Lieutenant and Captain. The Guards regiments had one rank for the regiment and one rank for the army. Why cannot people check their facts before they query mine? Am I supposed to re-read all this six times a day to find out what is being changed without first finding out if it needs changing? Arbil44 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You can see the totality of Ehrenkater's edits here. I don't see any substantive changes to the content of the article - just some added links and grammar improvements. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and naturally change over time, so I would try not to worry about establishing some sort of "definitive" version. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I guessed that it probably referred to one person, but the wording that I commented on was unclear to any reader who (like myself) does/did not know that Guards officers have two ranks, and therefore it requires/required some clarification. Furthermore, I didn't think that in that particular place in the text it was necessary to mention his rank(s) at all.-Ehrenkater (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

A specific question is on the page "is this one person or two". Of course it is one person. As explzszined, all Guards Officers had two ranks. In General Washington's Dilemma, by Katherine Mayo, all 13 officers who drew their names out of a hat are listed. All those in Guards regiments have two ranks. Today that sounds crazy, but it is the way it was. Please would you deal with this query which has messed up the page. Arbil44 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There are some errors in Mayo's book, and the Journal in December will be correcting these errors. For now a rough version [not yet approved by the Editor] of what will appear is as follows:

Lieutenant & Captain Charles ASGILL 1st Regiment of Foot

Arbil44 (talk) 17:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see you have tried to improve matters CL, but it is no longer right! He was promoted to lieutenant in the regiment and captain in the army - at the same moment in time, when he was 18 years old. This becomes so important later, when Washington wants to send him to the gallows. It is important to make this distinction at the outset, because Asgill's argument was that he wss 'only a lieutenant' and Washington wanted to hang a captain (like Huddy). Arbil44 (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

When you wrote that it was one person, I assumed you meant Asgill, so made this change. I'm not sure I understand what the sentence is trying to say if it doesn't refer to him. Could you just change it yourself so that it's right? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to understand that one person could have two ranks Cordless Larry, but that is how it was in the Guards regiments. Please will you and Dormskirk look after this Asgill article for me? I am so nervous that people who have no knowledge of any of this come along and wreck it. As you know, I am heavily involved with the upcoming publication and yet I keep having to spend so much time here. Arbil44 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not confused about the two ranks, Arbil44, but rather why you said that the article was no longer correct after I made this change. I see that you've made an edit now, but to a different passage. If my edit was wrong, you need to correct that part too. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I put 'lieutenant' back in - I thought it was you who took 'lieutenant' out. I don't understand the pages you have referred me to. Could the article simply be put back to how it was before someone came long and made so many changes? I will try to be clear - after he was an 'ensign' he was promoted to 'lieutenant and captain' - it's as simple as that. I think this appears twice in the article - one where the comment was inserted "is this two people or one" and this same 'lieutenant and captain' appears again in the Colonel Gregory quote. To say he was promoted to 'captain', which is what I thought you amended it to, is wrong, because the Guards regiments had this two-tier rank system. I just cannot believe that this morning I wanted to preserve the page as book, and now we are talking about all this, following someone's edit, when they clearly know nothing about the Guards and their two-tier system. How is this possible? I don't know what your edit was and why you would edit other than the place where the question "is this two people or one" was inserted. Arbil44 (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My edit just added Asgill's name in place of the note that was added asking whether "The young lieutenant and captain" was one person or two. The link I provided (this one) was the difference between the versions before and after my edit (the old version on the left, the new version on the right). I didn't take the "lieutenant" out - in fact, neither did Ehrenkater. The version of the article as it existed this morning (which you can see here) didn't have it in. Maybe an older version did, but I haven't checked. It might be worth you having a read of Help:Page history, because I think it might clear up some of the misunderstandings we've had. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ehrenkater queried whether a 'lieutenant and captain' was one person or two people, so both ranks were there when they entered their query. By the time I edited, there was only a 'captain' there, so I thought you must have taken out the 'lieutenant' and I put it back. I have downloaded the pdf. which I will read in slow time, hopefully tomorrow. If I don't come back it means all is OK now. I would still be grateful if you could stop anything awful happening to this page. I have just spent nearly two months working on this, day and night (which has made me ill), and some other people (who clearly know nothing about the subject) come for a brief moment and leave chaos behind them. Then when questions are asked on the MoS page nobody can be bothered to reply. Discouraged doesn't even begin to touch on how I feel. Arbil44 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing two different paragraphs, Arbil44. Ehrenkater added the query to the end of "The young lieutenant and captain" in the third paragraph of the "Early life and education" section. I clarified by adding "Asgill" to the end of that part of the sentence. You then made a change to the previous paragraph, changing a sentence from "Asgill was promoted to the rank of captain while just 18 years old, receiving his commission on 3 February 1781" (which you'll find in the PDF you downloaded this morning) to "Asgill was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and captain while still 18 years of age, receiving his commission on 3 February 1781". Neither I nor Ehrenkater had changed the wording of that sentence. That's the best I can do to explain - I'm sorry if it doesn't make sense, but that is my last attempt to explain. Please stop accusing other editors of creating chaos and knowing nothing about the subject, when they haven't even done the things you ascribe to them. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for my error. However, you clearly do not understand how frightening the IT side of this is to an old woman who finds the whole Wikipedia experience daunting beyond words. I have downloaded The London Gazette No. 12160 dated Feb 6 to Feb 10, 1781 which states that Asgill was promoted to lieutenant on 10 Feb 1781. May I request you make a link to that for the promotion to lieutenant and remove your insertion of 'Asgill' in the Gregory passage? I have therefore removed the reference to "captain" regarding this 1781 promotion. I have left the dual rank of 'lieutenant and captain; in the quote about Colonel Gregory since that is a direct quote from the Ibernian Magazine. But the link for that quote states he is a captain, so confusion abounds at every turn. The dual rank system has clearly confused everyone for the past 200 years+. I hope this clarifies the matter for any editor querying this in future Arbil44 (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I realise the the technical side of editing Wikipedia can be difficult for those without strong IT skills, but I pointed out several comments above that there had been a mix-up and yet you still continued to blame poor Ehrenkater. It's important to assume good faith, especially when there is confusion about who has done what. I'm now too tired (and a little stressed), so will attend to your request when I am rested tomorrow - I don't want to make a mistake editing while tired. In general, though, I would encourage you to make any necessary minor changes to the article yourself. Your COI is only really an issue when you want to add citations to your own publications, in my view. It shouldn't stop you making minor changes to the wording of the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

PS: I don't think the remaining instance of "lieutenant and captain" is a direct quote, is it? If it is, then the sentence is missing the necessary quote marks. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The editor earlier today (yesterday) changed 'city' to 'town' but the link takes you to more information in which it is stated "Certainly the city of Kilkenny presented him with the current lot. He subsequently commanded the army in Dublin before retiring to England." Did that Editor look at the link before making this change? I have no personal knowledge as to whether 'city' or 'town' is correct - I was simply quoting from the sales information. Arbil44 (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Kilkenny has been a city since 1609, so I've changed that back. I think Ehrenkater must have confused it with Clonmel, mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Lots going on here! I too am stressed! Too many cooks spoil the broth in my view...the trouble with the Gregory incident is that it is how I originally phrased it at a time when I had the Hibernian Magazine to copy and paste from. Complaints were made about a lack of a link, I think, and I subsequently found the one now linked to that passage. It unquestionably proves the point, but isn't the exact original source, which I can no longer find. As to giving links to my own work, that really wasn't me. There are endless links to it now, but I would have been far too embarrassed to do that myself. So much is going to change soon - could we all calm down and just make some minor edits, as discussed above, and wait for the real event, when the Asgill Affair will be turned on its head - not just by me, but by the team working on the publication? Who would believe, right now, that Washington deliberately didn't publish some of his correspondence, which he wanted kept secret, for instance? Nobody would. History is very dodgy indeed. Recently I found a document referring to "Asgill's Autograph of 1783" in a publication by Edward E. Hale. I had everyone from Yale, the Library of Congress, the British Library, Cambridge University and endless others all looking for this document, in which Hale stated that Asgill was making various claims in support of Washington's version of events. It turns out that this historian/author was in the habit of 'making it up as he went along' (to make history more interesting) and no such "Asgill's Autograph of 1783" ever existed. Against this kind of background, how can anyone, hundreds of years later, get anything right? Arbil44 (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm so terrified that this who;e "Hibernian Magazine / Gregor issue" is going to become the next drama that I have been trying to find a better source. I can't, but this is z direct link mentioning the Magazine. I hope it will suffice? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nmwFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA434&dq=Asgill.+Gregory&hl=en It's nearly 4am, which is now commonplace for me in trying to satisfy Wikipedia demands, in fear of the retribution in store for me if I don't, thus averting more trouble. I do hope this will suffice? Arbil44 (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as the source that is cited verifies the material, it's fine. We don't need to cite the source that you originally used, as long as WP:VERIFY is satisfied. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Back to the ranks issue, the DNB source states that he "became lieutenant in the same regiment with the rank of captain on 3 Feb. 1781". Can I rephrase the article along those lines? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have seen that, to be on the safe side, I have changed the reference to a new one about Gregory. I don't think I have got the link right though. Yes, do change the reference to his promotion to lieutenant (as you mention above), I guess it doesn't matter that the London Gazette gives the date of 10th Feb 1781 rather than 3rd? The only other matter is whether to go back to the source regarding Kilkenny being a 'city'? Please could you tell me if you change any of the text, other than the items mentioned here, because I just cannot cope with having to read this article from start to finish any more, to find out what has changed. Arbil44 (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've already changed town back to city (see above). I've seen your edit this morning and think I have a slightly better approach. I'll edit the article shortly; let me know if you object to what I do. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thoughts and feedback welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think what you have done is very good indeed, but I would only say two things 1) possibly it is a little over labouring the point (!) but 2) I am concerned that it gives away the 'drawing of lots' result before the Asgill Affair is mentioned. Is there any way with ... and [ ] to somehow get rid of this: "General Washington expressed deep concern, when he was informed the unhappy lot had fallen on this worthy young gentleman". I am going to ask my husband to double check the accuracy of my typed quote, with me, in a minute, because I notice that I changed "honor" to "honour" by mistake.

If I may comment on the promotion to lieutenant too - I have never seen it written like this "Asgill was promoted to the rank of lieutenant with the rank of captain" before. Could we possibly stick to "became lieutenant in the same regiment with the rank of captain on 3 Feb. 1781" instead? Thanks for changing 'town' to 'city', as per the quoted source, even though I have no idea, in reality, which is actually correct. There isn't anything else which has been changed is there? Although I did notice something happened in "Images" by the other editor yesterday, but have no clue what that was. Arbil44 (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Arbil44 (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I've changed that wording, although I've left it at "in February 1781", given that the sources differ about the precise date. According to the Wikipedia article about Kilkenny it's been a city since 1609. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the 'lieutenant' amendment, which is now much better. I have modified the 'Colonel Gregory' quote. for the reasons given. and hope it will meet with your approvsl? I note that you have changed the Kilkenny quote, and the reasons given by you. Are we done? No, we aren't, even though I wanted to leave on 1st October. MoS has not given their verdict. However the amendments you have made on Capitalistion are 'spot on' and I will be fighting to the death to keep them as you have amended. Arbil44 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made one minor tweak to the long quote, because readers won't have encountered Washington's name at that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Noted and thanked. Arbil44 (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and interlude at WT:MOSCAPS

Please note the discussion at MOS:CAPS. I have closed that discussion so as not to split this discussion. See this link to close. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - please could you tell me what is going on here? I thought Cinderella told us capitalisation was right? Now it has been changed back to lower case? Could someone tell me whether I have moved into an alternative dimension and I am dreaming all this? What about the General Whisler page and the Duke of York page stating they are Colonels of Regiments? Do they still stay with capitalisation? My page appears to be being targetted, right, left and centre, while others aren't. Arbil44 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

1) It is not your page; see Wikipedia:Ownership of content. And I feel a bit affronted that after taking the trouble to seek out and add references to the article, my contributions are described as "targetting".

2) The form "Colonel of the Regiment of the 2nd Battalion, 46th Regiment of Foot" was nonsense. The "colonel of the regiment" is the colonel of the whole regiment (in 1800, Sir James Craig). The nominal commander of the second battalion was styled colonel-commandant, as the Gazette reference shows. Also it seemed to me redundant to have "Colonel of the Regiment of the 5th West India Regiment", so I shortened it to "Colonel of the 5th West India Regiment". And once I'd done that, it looked odd to have one single instance of "colonel" capitalised when all other ranks were given in lower case, so I changed it. Opera hat (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been targetted - since 21 August - and it has made me ill - I have had to fight tooth and nail for every word, every sentence, every paragraph that is now back on the Asgill page. Cordless Larry is aware of how hard I have worked to obey every order, go to other talk pages, get better referencces, ring the College of Arms on a daily basis etc. etc. etc. A couple of days ago I thought the Asgill page was done amd dusted, by which time, having been working 20 hour days (partly because of a history-changing publication coming out in December) all this has brought me to a nervous wreck. Then I noticed Opera hat's lower casse amendments yesterday. So I cannot leave and get on with so much more important matters than this. But I wholeheartedly refute Opera hat's opinions on the matter of lower case. I tried to explain on the other page that including the Wikipedia link to 'Colonel of Regiment' did, indeed, interfere with the smooth wording of the relevant passage. I understand the reasons Cordless Larry included that, but the truth of the matter is that Opera hat's wording is correct, and better. I do not accept that lower case for rank follows through to lower case for ceremonial position though - nor does Cinderella157. Cordless Larry, please will you find an arbitrator who can bring this matter to an end? All this is interfering with a family member's birthday today (mine actually). Yes, I am 75 today, but have not enjoyed it so far. Edited to add: I discussed with Cordless Larry the anomaly of the 46th Regiment, 2nd battalion - but he told me that the link to Colonel of the Regiment (Wikipedia article) had to be linked to the first regiment in that paragraph, even though it made a nonsense of it. Opera hat - please read this long long thread to put yourself in the picture. It was you who insited on coming back here. Arbil44 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I seem to have unwittingly wandered into a situation here... It sounds like maybe you should give yourself a break from all this for a while and enjoy your Important Birthday! Even people who edit Wikipedia on a regular basis can find it draining sometimes, so a WP:Wikibreak is a thing. This article will still be here tomorrow, or next week. Opera hat (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I had hoped that break would happen two days ago and discussed with Cordless Larry how to save the page as a book, to round off a hellish two months. I cannot go away and enjoy myself when this new drama has presented itself. If I do it will be asumed that I have lost interest. I hope there will be someone who can arbitrate as soon as possible. For clarity, this is how I propose the paragraph is presented:

Asgill was promoted to major-general in January 1799.[22] He was appointed Third Major of the 1st Foot Guards in November that year[23] and then Colonel-Commandant of the 2nd Battalion, 46th (South Devonshire) Regiment of Foot on 9 May 1800.[24][25] He went onto half-pay when the 2nd Battalion was disbanded in 1802.[26][27] Promoted to lieutenant general in January 1805,[28] he was appointed Colonel of the 5th West India Regiment in February 1806,[29] of the 85th Regiment of Foot in October 1806,[30] and of the 11th (North Devonshire) Regiment on 25 February 1807.[25][31] He was promoted to general on 4 June 1814.[32]

This edit would be made more complicated by inserting a link to the Wikipedia article on 'Colonel of the Regiment' because that tends to interfere with the otherwise correct wording - and phrasing - used by Opera hat. The only issue here is where some capital letters are needed. Arbil44 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I winning you over to my viewpoint Opera hat? I see you have put up a link to the Wikipedia article about "Colonel of the Regiment" which gives capital letters? It was a clever positioning of this link, I have to admit, as it doesn't interfere with the format of the paragraph! As far as I can see, Cinderella157 has given the go-ahead for my capitalisation to be instigated, so are we nearly there, or does an arbitrator need to be called in Cordless Larry? I would definitely like to leave Wikipedia and have this all behind me. Arbil44 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been trying to find out what is a "third major" - a "third major" when you have already reached the "rank" of a "general officer". It is absolutely mystifying me. However, in the absence of really knowing, I would probably make a concession on this being in lower case because all I can find is the pay structure https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31175035146409&view=1up&seq=60 for what I presume must have been a "rank" and not a "ceremonial appointment". I have never come across this term before and it may be unique to the Guards Regiments. I'm almost tempted to ring the Guards Museum and I would do so if there was ever anyone available to answer the phone, which never seems to be the case. If I can get through first time, then, well, let's see. Arbil44 (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

On the other page I linked to this site for an explanation of "third major". In the line, nominal command of the regiment could be held by a general officer. In the Foot Guards, where lieutenants were captains and captains were lieutenant-colonels, nominal command of a company or battalion could be held by a general officer. I hope you had a happy birthday. Opera hat (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your birthday wishes Opera hat! I have looked at the link you provided. The Guards Regiments and their dual-rank system has confused historians over the centuries. As for 3rd major when you are a general, that is the hardest one to get one's head around! Also, to be a lieutenant in your regiment but a captain in the army is also difficult to understand. The publication I am currently working on lists the 13 officers who, like Asgill, took part in the lottery of death. Nobody has yet got this list correctly recorded in terms of all their first names, surnames and the regiments in which they served. Not even Samuel Graham, who was one of those present on the fateful day. Much work has gone into getting this list right - finally - and come December the whole Asgill Affair will be re-written, and completely turned on its head, when the publication is available for purchase. Several editors here (but maybe not Opera Hat or Cinderella157) know that I have researched Asgill since 2002 and spent £20k in doing so. My final research took place in America in May this year. Three amazing things came out of that trip. 1) Asgill's hidden 18-page letter of 1786 will be published for the first time EVER in 233 years 2) I have been the first person to establish just exactly where he was held prisoner* and the manner in which he was treated and 3) I have managed to get Trinity Church, NYC, to agree to erect a grave marker to the most wonderful Scottish officer who, currently, lies in an unmarked grave there (see the James Gordon page). I've done all this, not particularly because I am descended from Asgill's illegitimate son (he had no other children, legitimate or otherwise), but because I found his story fascinating. It has been the hardest imaginable 'thing' ever, after all this, to have been slapped with the COI card and be put through the hoops I have been since 21 August when the page was culled so radically. My severe lack of IT skills, and the difficulty I have navigating Wikipedia diktats, has made it a complete nightmare for me. *(regarding my comment above, I do not know, as yet, how this matter is going to be dealt with in the publication, because Editors don't like trailblazers who are the first to establish historical facts, which cannot be verified in previous publications. However, there is not a shadow of a doubt about this and the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle were very few and very easy to piece together). Turning to the publication you linked to, I repeat it below, and at the same time ask you why you do not accept the capitalsastion there? Personally, I also prefer "3rd Major" to "third major". Could I please ask Cordless Larry or Cinderella157 to tell me whether the capitalisation I have asked for will be agreed to? - or whether the lower case used by Opera hat will be staying. I am so confused, because I thought both these editors supported my case for some capitalisation, yet lower case remains on the Asgill page? I wanted to leave Wikipedia on 1st October, the day before my husband's caner operation, and shortly after my own cancer surgery, but this capitalisation matter is keeping me here.

Edited to add. My sincere thanks to Cinderella157 for their kind message on my talk page. Unfortunately I will never ever go back there. My experiences on Wikipedia have been far too painful and all I want is to leave Wikipedia for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbil44 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sir Charles Asgill, Bart. G.C.H.

Born London 1762; served in the American War 1781; a POW at Yorktown, sentenced to hang but had his life spared on appeal from Louis XVI; brevet Colonel 26 February 1795; Brigadier-General in Ireland 1798; Major-General 1 January 1798; 3rd Major 25 October 1799; Colonel-Commandant 2/46th Foot 9 May 1800; Lieutenant-General 1 January 1805; General 4 June 1814. Arbil44 (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just spoken to Gary Gibbs, curator of the Guards Museum, for 20 minutes, and I understand the 3rd Major business much better for doing so! One tends to forget that, back in the day, ranks were purchased, so only men from wealthy families could become generals! Arbil44 (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, got my head around the curious rank structure for the Guards Regiments that are a consequence of purchased commissions. Came across this source that promises to be informative but I'm really not able to access it.

• and in March 1790 he was promoted to command a company in the 1st Foot Guards,[16] with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. - without some explanation, this appears erroneous. It might best be remedied by way of an explanatory footnote - ie: The system of purchasing commissions gave rise to some idiosyncrasies in rank and posting in the prestigious House and Guards regiments and the value of commissions in these regiments. Regimental appointments were owned by officers of higher ranks than associated with an equivalent position in a line regiment. The appointment of company commander (normally a captaincy) was held by a lieutenant-colonel and styled captain and lieutenant-colonel.[Cite]
• There is some agreement to the format Colonel of the Regiment of X Regiment but colonel of X Regiment per guidance at MOS:CAPS, discussion there and here. Of these, the former is a little awkward but not onerously so.
• An alternative construction that may satisfy everyone (or no one) might be: ... he was appointed Colonel of the Regiment of the 5th West India Regiment (February 1806),[29] of the 85th Regiment of Foot (October 1806),[30] and of the 11th (North Devonshire) Regiment (25 February 1807). This makes it clearer that this was an appointment to the title and not to the rank/position of commander of the regiment.
• He was appointed third major of the 1st Foot Guards in November that year. Third major, in this context is a specific title per MOS:JOBTITLES and should be capped? However, this is not clear and Opera hat rightly points out that such things are likely to be decapped in the future. I would therefore add a note to explain what a Third major is (similar to previous) - ie: Third major is another position peculiar to House and Guard regiments of the time. Nominally the second-in-command of each battalion (normally a major's appointment), by seniority of battalions within the regiment (ie the third battalion), these positions would be owned by more senior officers.[Cite]

Hope this helps. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel confident Cinderella157 will come to the proper conclusion, whatever it may be, and will be happy to go with that decision, whatever it may be. Arbil44 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been waiting for comments from others - Cordless Larry? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I han't expected further changes would take place while this was under discussion. Please may I reauest that the term used be "Third Major" rather than "major of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Foot Guards". I don't see the latter reflected in the London Gazette in question.Arbil44 (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel that I know enough about military ranks to comment. Opera hat and Dormskirk might be better placed. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the very helpful explanation of third major above (which was an official position at the time). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

If it was an 'official position' (like Colonel of the Regiment) rather than a 'rank' (like major) then we are talking about capitalisation here then, but I was querying where 3rd battalion of the 1st Foot Guards came from since I couldn't see that mentioned in the Gazette entry. Arbil44 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot shed any light on that one. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This is knotty and the more I search the more confused I get. I just cannot find a 'definition' for 3rd Major, nor even third major. So far as capitalisation goes, it seems to be a free-for-all, with some using capitals and some using lower case. The Americans, such as Don Hagist (who I've had endless contact with over many years - he was the one who provided the story of Asgill going to the aid of Colonel Gregory, his enemy) at JAR (Journal of the American Revolution) goes with lower case. I would simply get back to the examples I offered earlier on, both for the Wikipedia article on General Whistler and also, who would write 'black rod' rather than 'Black Rod'? I do empathise with Opera hat's position here (and I like the way they have set out that paragraph, excepting perhaps the newly entered third major bit), but I still maintain that 'appointments' should be capitalised! Let's see what Cinderella157 thinks. However, whatever the outcome, I very much doubt it will stay put. Someone will come along and change it back again in nano seconds, and so this saga will continue!Arbil44 (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

...who would write 'black rod' rather than 'Black Rod'? I wouldn't, but the Dictionary of National Biography would. See here: "In 1877 he resigned his position in the household of the Prince of Wales, and accepted that of gentleman usher of the black rod." Different publications have different conventions on capitalisation. One isn't right and the other wrong, they're just different. Opera hat (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I had thought that as the term "third major" was causing so much confusion here on the talk page, expanding it to "major of the 3rd battalion" would be more useful for readers. Again, this page gives an explanation that a regiment of Foot Guards had one colonel, one lieutenant-colonel and then one major for each battalion, and that these field ranks were often held by general officers. But these ranks in the regiment are still ranks, see e.g. the Army Lists for 1799, where Asgill is the senior captain, and 1800, where he is the third major. Ranks in the regiment and ranks in the Army are given in separate columns. I don't see how deciding to call regimental ranks "appointments" and then capitalising them is helpful to anyone. Opera hat (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I do hope that Cinderella157 will kindly arbitrate on the matter of Capitalisation soon. I'm afraid this subject got sidetracked by what has happened below. Many thanks. Arbil44 (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - I am confused by what is going on, because a week ago you wrote, on the MoS thread: "Cinderella157's response is that Colonel of the Regiment should be capitalised, but not the abbreviated form colonel. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)" That would tie in with Wikipedia's article "Colonel of the Regiment" too. This means that the (ceremonial appointment, NOT rank) of "colonel-commandant" should have two capital 'C's and also that "colonel of the 5th West India Regiment" should have one capital 'C'. The other Colonelcies are grouped together, thus no further amendments are necessary. In all other respects the paragraph is worded correctly. Are you able to make those amendments on the basis of the ruling given by Cinderella157 previously? Arbil44 (talk) 09:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, I don't know who added the image of the Surrender at Yorktown (nice touch) but the caption needs attention: "Cornwallis's surrender in October 1781 following the siege of Yorktown, after which Asgill became an American prisoner of war." Should read "Cornwallis' surrender....". I also think that "became a prisoner of war" is neater and less confusing? Would someone think Asgill was American? Arbil44 (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"Cornwallis's surrender" is correct. From Fowler's Modern English Usage, revised third edition, page 61: "Use 's for the possessive case in English names and surnames whenever possible; i.e. in all monosyllables and disyllables, and in longer words accented on the penult[imate syllable], as Burns's, Charles's, Cousins's, Dickens's, Hicks's, St James's Square, Thomas's, Zacharias's." I agree that "an American" is not needed. Opera hat (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The official Army List, produced by the War Office, calls colonel-commandant a rank; see here. You don't get much more official than that. Opera hat (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that I've seen that explanation I would concede on colonel-commandant (a term I've never struck before, even though the Army List capitalises it), but not on "Colonel of the Regiment". I'm also rather glad that you have removed the 3rd Major business (I presume it was you? Or have you snuck it in somewhere else?) which was causing a bit of a stir and few had a clue (including me) what it was all about. So, will you concede on Colonel of the Regiment? If you will then we can be done and dusted here? Arbil44 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the concession. The note of his promotion to major in the regiment is still there, I just moved it to before the bit on the Irish rebellion, as that made more sense chronologically.

Cinderella157 (in the green text above) seemed to support the forms Colonel of the Regiment of X but colonel of X Regiment, and you said you were happy to go along with whatever he said... surely this is agreement that colonel of the 5th West India Regiment should stay as it is? I still think it would look odd to have "Colonel" capitalised in that single instance, when all other ranks in the article are given in lower case. The link is there to explain to anyone who's interested that this was a nominal rather than operational command. Opera hat (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I maintain that "Colonel of the X Regiment" or "Colonel of the Regiment of the X Regiment" is one and the same thing - and is a ceremonial position - and is in no way the same thing as the rank of colonel. If Cinderella157 does not agree with my assessment, then I will have no choice but to accept it. I don't agree that it is only valid in the context of writing "Colonel of the Regiment". Please see the entry on General Whisler, which rests my case. You cannot make one rule there and another for Asgill. I have given way on two points, cannot you compromise and go with me on this, which involves one sole capital 'C'? Arbil44 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit Cinderella157. Now that that paragraph is back to how Cordless Larry edited it I can look at it without cringing! I would also thank Opera hat for having re-worded the paragraph in a better way - earlier on. Now I am happy with the article and very very much hope that the content is not changed again. Arbil44 (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Portrait and more

I see your footprint all over the page once more. You have undone Dormskirk's lovely work on the Sophia portrait and, to me, "Cornwallis's" looks really strange. Have you picked up the other places were it was "Cornwallis' "? Unless I glue myself to the page, to watch out for everything you decide to change, I'll just have to let you delete won't I. However, you were spectacularly wrong about the name of Asgill's wife (as, if, after 18 years, I hadn't worked out who he married) and castigated me totally unnecessarily over the hot water urn. I am very nervous indeed about all your edits as a result. Arbil44 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Dormskirk's work on the portrait had been approved by Spintendo. Arbil44 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I hadn't noticed the other Cornwallis'-es; thanks for pointing them out. What are your objections to my changes to the Lady Asgill picture caption? With regard to her name, I replaced an unreliable source (thepeerage.com) with a (usually) reliable one (The Complete Baronetage) which turns out to have been wrong in this case. The citation to thepeerage.com still needs replacing; I'll find a better one shortly. Opera hat (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

There is only one famous Lady Asgill in history and that is Charles Asgill's mother (Sarah Theresa) who, when it comes down to it, saved her son's life by interesting Queen Marie Antoinette in her son's plight. And while I agree that Lady Sophia Asgill is, in itself, not correct, how do we make sure that someone who knows nothing doesn't jump to the conclusion that the portrait represents Asgill's mother? I also happen to agree with you about thepeerage.com. I have written to the author pointing out some pretty dreadful mistakes, but not only has he not corrected his page entirely as I suggested, but he has spelt my name wrong too! Arbil44 (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

H'm, fair point. I've changed "shows Lady Asgill sitting at her feet" to "shows Asgill's wife Sophia sitting at her feet", that makes it clearer I hope? Opera hat (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Listen, I digress, but could you take a pause on the Asgill page and help me with something which has become seriously almost impossible - and really urgent - regarding the publication going to press at the end of this month? We have an image of Timothy Day's Tavern lined up, but copyright permission has not come through and isn't looking hopeful right now. It is a really important image and I cannot find an alternative to use - especially one not under copyright. Day's Tavern, in Chatham New Jersey (in 1782) eventually became known as Condit's Tavern some years later. It survived until the Civil War and so there might be a better chance of finding the building shown under the Condit's name. I just need help and don't know where to turn for this help. It would be a crying shzme for the Journal not to have an image to demonstrate the text. Arbil44 (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid my knowledge of that sort of thing is pretty much nonexistent! My first thought was to suggest you contact the local library, but they would probably refer you to the Chatham Historical Society… or have you tried them already? Opera hat (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes! I've already tried them. I'm still waiting for a response to emails from Feb and Mar...and more recent appeals for help. But, now I've seen this "Charles Asgill died at his London residence at 7 York Stree". No, he didn't, he died at the home of his mistress who lived in Chelsea, where he had been living for the final two years of lhis life (he sold his house in York Street about a year after his wife died). He wrote three codicils to his will from this Chelsea address in the 10 days leading up to his death. He had the comfort of his mistress and their son by his side at the time he died. The only proof of this is in his will and codicils. I am getting REALLY WORRIED about people who know nothing about Asgill's life editing this page. It will end up a total mess and completely wrong if this goes on. Why don't people ask me before making sweeping and inaccurate statements? I have never put this business about his mistress on the Asgill page, but if you think you can rephrase this in a way in which it could be included, then do so, but otherwise the bit about dying in York Street has got to come off. Arbil44 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, I was wondering why the Gentleman's Magazine obituary didn't say where he died! (They usually do, but they must have felt discretion was preferable in this case.) Certainly this later "Asgill affair" should be included, if there is a source for it in the will. I assume you've got a copy: if you don't mind quoting the relevant passages, I can try coming up with something we can put in the article. No hurry. Opera hat (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

To be perfectly frank, both Asgill and his mistress did everything within their power to keep this under wraps. His mistress was the mistress of one of the King's Equerries (General Robert Msnners who provided her with her home in Chelsea) and she had 6 children by him and one by Asgill. She was Irish, but I don't think they met in Ireland - I think they somehow met through both her 'lovers' being involved in the royal court circles. I feel I should probably respect their privacy on Wikipedia although I think there is something about this in my Saving Captain Asgill article. I would never have found Mary Ann (the mistress) had she not had a hog stolen and the thief was tried at the Old Bailey and deported to Australia, even though he returned the hog. This gave her name and address which tallied with the codicils written by Asgill. I'll check my "Saving" article and if there is something there that would do wouldn't it? I'd want this phrased very delicately, and to do the least harm to both of their reputations. This is the wording which should go back until further deliberation has taken place: "Charles Asgill died in London, where he had lived at 7 York Street [18] (which became 6 York Street circa 1820)". Let me know what you think, but do get that wrong information off a.s.a.p. and, please, if you want to make such sweeping statements in future, please check with me first. I am getting weary of having to re-read the article all the time. Arbil44 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to re-read the whole article every time. If you go to the "View history" tab it lets you see which changes have been made since you last viewed the article. Incidentally, I created the Wikipedia article on that Robert Manners back in 2011. :) Opera hat (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, it is not so much the content of the codicils, it is the fact that all 3 were signed and dated at the house of his mistress, whose address is given in the codicils, and whose address ties up with the hog stolen case at the Old Bailey. The three codicils show that a stream of women turned up at his death-bed begging to be left 'something' in his will. His mistress only got a clock and two vases (no doubt very vaulable ones) but Asgill knew that Robert Manners had left Mary Ann a very wealthy woman in his (Robert Manners') will. Manners and Asgill died within weeks of one another - poor Mary Ann! Asgill left his horse to one of Mary Ann's "Manners children", who were all living with them in Chelsea. He denied all knowledge of his illegitimate son, which was very sad really. That illegitimate son, from whom I am descended, is buried in the very same grave with his mother, Mary Ann, having died at a lunatic asylem in Maidstone (the town where I was born). Arbil44 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I've just checked, and this is all I say in "Saving Captain Asgill" on the matter of the mistress: "Asgill is an ancestor of mine: he is my great-great-great grandfather through the illegitimate child borne by Mary Ann Mansel, the mistress in whose arms he died". Is this enough? Apart from the fact that this basic information will be repeated in the December Journal, that is all there is in print on the matter - except - wait - there is more in one of the links to an article, essentially about Asgill House, compiled by Nick Kingsley. Maybe you should take a look at that and see what you think. Arbil44 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, the plot thickens by the minute! So you knew about Mary Ann Goodchild (otherwise Mansel) all along?! Goodchild was her maiden name, as far as we can make out, but she adopted the surname Mansel in her relationship with your Robert Manners and their 6 children bore that surnme. I have a letter she wrote using the name "Your loving mother, Mary Ann Mansel". In Asgill's will he gives her both surnames (to be on the safe side?). That is the first point I wanted to make. The second is this - I have just copied and pasted this from your articl:

General Manners continued as Colonel of the 30th Foot until his death in 1823.[10] He was unmarried, but left issue by Mary Ann Goodchild (1780–1854). Would you be able to explain how that capitalisation is OK for Robert Msnners but not for Charles Asgill? And the third point is this:

I see you have amended where Asgill died, which is good, but you have left out the part about No. 7 becoming No. 6, so that what you have written does not tie in with the Top Box of information at the beginning of the article.

I have just had wonderful news from America! Copyright permission has been granted for the Journal to use that image. My question is this. If the Journal has permission does that mean that after publication I can upload the same image for includion on the Asgill page? Or doesn't that follow?

And what about the Mary Ann information on the Asgill page? Are you interested in doing something about that and posting it here (so I can see it before it goes on the page)? By the way, years and years ago I acquired a bundle of 19 original letters, some of which were written by your Robert Manners to his recalcitrant son, Herbert, telling him he had to pull his socks up! The Mary Ann Post Script on another letter told me her name, so I was able to touch the paper she touched. Quite something.

If Cinderella157 tries to post here about Capitalisation will any of us see it now this thread has again become clogged with random other information? But how can you deny me capitalisation for Asgill when you have used it on your own article? Arbil44 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ha ha, touché... almost! I last edited that article in 2012, and when I first got involved with this discussion I did say that When I first started adding military biographies to Wikipedia, I used to capitalise all ranks (as in the London Gazette) but Wikipedia house style goes against this. I may well have agreed with you eight years ago, but I don't now. And I haven't even thought about Robert Manners since then, either, so no, I would hardly say I "knew about Mary Ann all along".

Very glad to hear about the news from America! So are you the Anne Ammundsen whose 2011 "Saving Captain Asgill" article is already cited? And if no-one holds the copyright or if you hold the copyright for that picture, then I suppose that means you can upload it to Wikipedia... but as I said before, I know absolutely nothing about image licensing. Opera hat (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Here https://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-london/vols29-30/pt1/pp285-287#h3-0005 you will see that Asgill sold his York Street house in 1822, so he only had the final year of his life with Mary Ann, or maybe closer to 2 years, depending on when the sale went through (maybe he moved out before the sale went through)? What is curious is that Mary Ann's Sun Life insurance almost doubled about that time too. The following is a copy and paste from one of my Mary Ann files, where the text is in capitals (I'm not shouting this time)! WITHIN FOUR WEEKS OF A £400 VALUATION – MARY ANN UPPED THE AMOUNT TO £600 – WHY I WONDER? – WHAT HAPPENED IN MAY 1821? WAS THAT THE EXACT MONTH ASGILL MOVED IN? – IF SO, HE SPENT HIS FINAL TWO YEARS WITH MARY ANN. 24th May 1821 980453 Mary Ann Mansell of No 15 Park Place South, near the Man in the Moon Chelsea 12/ Lday 1822 On her now dwelling house only situate as aforesaid private Brick D/y 18/- Six hundred pounds 2/ £600 (approximately £41,400 today using the RPI) 2/-63 Signed H Burnie, B Pearse, T Dorrington 08/480 H?HH Arbil44 (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, who'd have guessed - you have found a way to wriggle out of what I had thought would be cast iron proof that you were having me on! Damn! We'll have to hope that Cinderella157 turns up and makes the decision for us both. Yes, I'm Anne and I've been slapped with the "COI collar of shame" (or branding like cattle as I think of it - that introduction sounds like I've just signed up for AA)...I think I'll not be able to upload the image here because it IS under copyright, but the copyright holder has given permission for the Journal to use that Timothy Day's Tavern image, so at least I have achieved that much. Cordless Larry will send me scuttling off to another page, and I don't think I'll be able to cope with that ever again - it is all too stressful - people just don't get back to you and it turns into a never ending saga. Arbil44 (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you won't be able to upload the image, unless the copyright holder agrees to release it under this license or similar. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

That is what I thought Cordless Larry. Such a shame - it is the most important image in the whole Asgill Affair. Once publication has taken place I will write to ask if permission will be granted. Who knows, maybe it would be. Tell me, rather than having to go through all that myself, would I be able to ask the copyright holder to upload the image themselves, or would that be very rude of me to do so? I'm just very out of my comfort zone with the whole copyright scenario and don't really know how to approach it. Does the link you gave me essentially say that an image can be uploaded but then nobody is allowed to take it off Wikipedia and use it themselves? Sorry, I just don't understand. Could you do something about separating all this off-piste discussion away from the Capitalisation thread (which I hope Cinderella157 will return to). This is all getting so out of hand with all these terribly wrong edits to the Asgill inforrmtion - and then, where it is all leading to as well (with possibly, maybe, information about Mary Ann being added?). Arbil44 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll have a go at separating it, Arbil44. It's probably easier for the copyright holder to release permission, which they can do at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator. However, if they release the image under that Creative Commons license I linked to above, then use isn't just restricted to Wikipedia - anyone can use it as long as they give appropriate attribution. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've copied your links into a draft email to be sure I give the right informatio (when I'm in a position to take all this further). More good news, Dormskirk, Trinity Church is trying to ring me - presumably to give me an update about the grave marker for James Gordon. Arbil44 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Opera hat - no idea if it is of any interest to you, but I have a photograph of a portrait of Robert Manners (portrait is either at Haddon Hall or Belvoir Castle - the latter I think - but don't know which for sure - image was given to me by someone else, who took the picture). Also, Fanny Burney (is that the name of the diarist?) said that Manners coudn't sing to save his life (she had stood next to him during a rendition of "God Save the King" which had been painful for all to hear)! Apart from his letters, that was the most interesting thing I found out about him! Arbil44 (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mansel (otherwise Goodchild)

Opera hat - this is the story of the General's mistress and their son. What do you think should be done with it/about it? If anything?

I began to put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together when I found that Mary Ann Goodchild’s hog was stolen in September 1818 (when her son, Charles Childs, fathered by Asgill, was 2 years old – born first quarter of 1816), giving her address in Park Place South, Chelsea (her house was bombed in WWII so I couldn’t see it when I visited the Man in the Moon pub nearby, which Asgill and Mary Ann would have known well. (We had lunch there, now renamed). https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?div=t18180909-200

Mary Ann Mansel’s Sun Fire Insurance increased in 1821 (just 4 months after she had already renewed it) – the same year Asgill sold his York Street house. Asgill’s wife had died in 1819. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/dc9f7443-21ef-4cb5-bdaf-8f38a2d59866

Will of General Sir Charles Asgill mentions Mary Ann Mansel (otherwise Goodchild) to whom he leaves a clock and two vases! 3 of his codicils were written from Mary Ann’s address in the last few weeks of his life. Asgill leaves his horse to Mary Ann’s youngest Mansel (Manners) child, but absolutely nothing to his illegitimate son, who is not named in his will. Charles Asgill was bound by his father’s will which stated that, if he died childless, everything he owned was to be returned to the family – i.e. his sisters and their offspring – so he had no choice in the matter since he had no legitimate heirs. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D151254

Will of Mary Ann Mansel. Mary Ann leaves everything, absolutely everything to her son Charles Childs (Asgill’s son) – including her beautiful house in Loose, Kent (which I have visited and seen inside) even though her wealth derived from Robert Manners – Mary Ann left London after both her Generals had died in 1823 and went to Kent to be near her eldest Mansel son who had, by then joined the army and was barracked nearby. She leaves nothing whatsoever to her six Manners children (they were all well provided for by Manners). Charles Childs is also her sole Executor and (none of her other children were named as Executors). However, she does not name Charles as her son, even though, when he died, he was buried in the same grave as his mother. Her two surnames gave her anonymity, when she needed it, and denying her illegitimate son was another one of her lies/cover stories. https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D50231

I cannot give a link to the original letters I was given by Herbert Mansel’s descendant, but those letters were a little revealing. Charles is mentioned (in the way you would a rather annoying younger brother who was dashing about with a gun!) and Mary Ann is referred to as being Irish (clearly her children teased her about her Irish ways and her Irish accent).

There is much more to the Mary Ann story, mainly from “Father’s book, Members of the Family” written by a couple of Charles Childs’ sons – this is no more than a very scrappy notebook, but it gives information about Charles’ birth and baptism (he was baptised privately, at home, because he was “in danger of death” and, being Catholic, Mary Ann rushed to get him baptised). The priest (Charles Drummond, DD) was the Duke of Melfort – over from the Vatican to claim his title – his elder brother having died. A professional family historian has searched 26 Catholic Archives for the baptism entry, to no avail, but, knowing Mary Ann, she would not have named Asgill as the father anyway. [ Charles Edouard Drummond, 5th Earl and Duke of Melfort and 10th Duke of Perth (1752–1840), titular 13th Earl of Perth, "Abbé de Melfort" https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Earl_of_Perth ]

Charles Childs was not a particularly likeable man – he had a sense of entitlement – which had been denied him. He was brought up as a cuckoo in the “Mansel” nest, with his six Mansel half-siblings. He saw how well Manners had provided for them and how Asgill had done nothing for him. I’ve explained Asgill’s circumstances, but, to my mind, Asgill could have left him his horse! But neither Mary Ann nor Asgill wanted to leave traces for posterity to find (me that is)! While Manners also kept his relationship with Mary Ann under wraps, this was not as closely guarded a secret as the Asgill side was. The Mansel children were all baptised into the Church of England at St. George’s, Hanover Square – so, although this church has a reputation for being the Gretna Green of London, it was still not hidden that they had children together. Charles Childs’ family had pretty much left him by the time he died of dementia at a lunatic asylum in Maidstone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakwood_Hospital (I have his case notes, and they make for very sad reading). He was separated from his wife by then too and she was calling herself an Annuitant – indicating she was a pensioner rather than in a married relationship. He and his wife, Elizabeth Heyward, had 11 children and Charles (Bef. May 1816 – 6 May 1884) made a living for himself as a Hop Farmer in Kent. I don’t think he was a good father – one of his children hated him so much that he ran away to join the Navy! Arbil44 (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry and Dormskirk, if Opera hat is busy elsewhere and not thinking of dealing with this, could one or other of you make a suggested edit, firstly here - and where you think it should be placed? I don't really want all the above languishing here, unattended (I probably want to delete it once a decision has been made). Or is there enough here, plus the sources I have given, for Mary Ann to have a small article of her own, with a link back here? What are your views? Also, could you ping Cinderella157 for a decision on capitalisation which I first raised on 9th October? Arbil44 (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have edited Asgill's page thus: "Circumstantial evidence exists to suggest that the final two years of his life were spent at the home of his mistress, Mary Ann Mansel (Goodchild)[45](who was also mistress to General Robert Manners) at 15 Park Place South near The Man in the Moon Chelsea. Three codicils to his will were written and signed there shortly before his death." which, for now, covers the mystery two years of 'where was he?'. However, a link needs to be made to the Robert Manners page created by Opera hat, and I don't know how to do this. If anyone would create a Mary Ann Mansel page, I think that would be great (and I can add to it, certainly with images). Arbil44 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Everything is done and the page is now as near to perfect as I can get it. I hope it stays this way and no wrecking balls return to insert more incorrect information - there has been far too much of that already. The only thing I haven't got right is the listing for the three links added (two for Mary Ann and one for Huddy's cemetery - I think the date on the latter needs to be changed to today). Anyone up for creating a Mary Ann Mansel (Goodchild) (Before 26.10.1780 - 26.10.1854) article? She was buried on 2 November 1854 at All Saint's Church, Loose, Kent (where Charles Childs joined her in the same grave on 6 May 1884). She used the surname Goodchild in her relationship with Asgill and the surname Mansel in her relationship with Manners. Was Mary Ann a bed-hopper or was it an idyllic ménage à trois?! You tell me, because she had 5 children with Manners, then one child with Asgill, and, finally, her sixth child with Manners! Also, Asgill was living for two years in a Chelsea house provided and paid for by Manners (who was the grandson of the Duke of Rutland). I think I'm done on the Asgill page - finally! Arbil44 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but I think the wording "Circumstantial evidence exists to suggest that..." falls foul of the no original research policy. Articles shouldn't present interpretations of primary sources in Wikipedia's voice. If a secondary source has said that the circumstantial evidence suggests something, we can attribute the interpretation to the secondary source, but we shouldn't be presenting interpretations such as this based only on primary sources. The alternative is just to report factually what the primary sources say, without interpretation. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - will you change it to something acceptable? Or will you have to delete the whole Mary Ann bit? This would never have arisen had not Opera hat brought Robert Manners and 'his' contribution into the discussion! I had previously been happy to leave Mary Ann out of it, until I found she was already here! Arbil44 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I will have a go shortly (unless your forthcoming journal article covers this, in which case we could use that as the secondary source for the interpretation). Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is always the good old faithful "Saving Captain Asgill" document to fall back on! Asgill and Mary Ann were secretive in their desire to keep this quiet, so there was no signed 'declaration' of their situation! Arbil44 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the Journal helps nothing at all - it is exclusively about The Asgill Affair of 1782 - nothing more and nothing less. The only exception is that the "Saving Captain Asgill" article is re-printed, with updated research amendments, that's all. The original "Saving" article is the best I can offer unfortunately. Arbil44 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what is in the "Saving" article: "Asgill is an ancestor of mine: he is my great-great-great grandfather through the illegitimate child borne by Mary Ann Mansel, the mistress in whose arms he died.". What do you think we should do about this new challenge?! Arbil44 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, we can certainly say something based on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry, I'm glad to hear it. Also, every cloud has a silver lining...I've just sent this to the Journal Editor, in the nick of time: Mike - I don't know how it got past History Today's proof readers, but I am really horrified about a spelling mistake which got through into the printed version:"Asgill is an ancestor of mine: he is my great-great-great grandfather through the illegitimate child borne by Mary Ann Mansel, the mistress in whose arms he died.Please will you correct before the Journal goes to print?" Oh, dear god! All these problems coming out of the woodwork! Arbil44 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Great. Does this wording work for you? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It does, but only up to a point! The reference regarding 6 Duke of York Street leaves a gap of 2 years, leaving the reader wondering where Asgill was actually located (from 1821-1823). The links to Mary Ann's Sun Life Insurance and her will tell the reader that a) she really existed and b) where the events which unfolded actually happened! Is there any way of re-inserting her address, based on the Sun Life papers? Arbil44 (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The address is still there - I just moved it later in the paragraph. Should I add that additional reference, or would you like it to be reworded? Feel free to have a go yourself if you can. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits Cordless Larry. I have simply repositioned the bit you had put in later, and which initially I did not spot. Personally I think Mary Ann's Sun Life Insurance link needs to go back in since it proves, unquestionbly, where she was living. I'd better not do it myself in case there is a problem I don't get? Btw - the spelling mistake in the Journal has already been amended! The wonders of emails! Arbil44 (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it somehow looks bit woolley now! Is there anything wrong with this instead? "The final two years of his life were spent at the home of his mistress, Mary Ann Mansel (Goodchild) [45][46](who was also mistress to Robert Manners (1758–1823)) at 15 Park Place South near The Man in the Moon, Chelsea. Three codicils to his will were written and signed there shortly before his death. Asgill died on 23 July 1823 and was buried in the vault at St James's Church, Piccadilly on 1 August...". Would that be OK? Arbil44 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Do the sources state that he lived there though, or is that just what they suggest? I can't access them to check, otherwise I would. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a problem, isn't it! What is there now makes it look like he popped round, albeit dying, just to write his codicils! The Saving article covered his whole life, so everything was in brief, hence only the bit about dying at Mary Ann's place. The current edit also doesn't explain where he was and what he was doing for the final two years of his life. However, if you feel you cannot amend as I suggested, then it must stay as is. But, could you link to Mary Ann's Sun Fire documents in order to prove her name and address? It might all be resolved if there were an article to link to about Mary Ann. Opera hat seemed keen on this new "Asgill Affair"! Would you be able to ping him to ask if he is still interested? Or are you? I couldn't cope with another COI slapped on me, since I am related to her too, so it cannot be me! Arbil44 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a copy and paste from the Robert Manners page "He was unmarried, but left issue by Mary Ann Goodchild (1780–1854)". - there are no citations - no proof - nothing, and yet it is there! Couldn't we go with my suggestions on the same basis as this? Arbil44 (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I've found enough proof now! Here https://landedfamilies.blogspot.com/2015/12/197-asgill-of-asgill-house-richmond.html it states: He himself had a mistress of long standing, with whom he co-habited from about 1821: Mary Ann Goodchild alias Mansel (1780-1854), who was also mistress to Gen. Sir Robert Manners (by whom she had six further children)

Would it therefore be possible to reinstate: "The final two years of his life were spent at the home of his mistress, Mary Ann Mansel (Goodchild) [MA's Sunlife Policy](who was also mistress to Robert Manners (1758–1823)) at 15 Park Place South near The Man in the Moon, Chelsea. Three codicils to his will were written and signed there shortly before his death.[Asgill's will] Asgill died on 23 July 1823 and was buried in the vault at St James's Church, Piccadilly on 1 August...". Arbil44 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding it fascinating what Wikipedia is forcing me to do! I'm having to look back over work long forgotten from almost two decades ago! I've now seen that while Asgill did write 3 codicils, only 2 of them were written from Mary Ann's address, so 3 should be changed to 2. Also fascinating to be reminded that Asgill wrote those codicils without his solicitor being present. When probate was going through, his solicitor (Mr Dormville, mentioned in relation to the Phillips portrait letter from Charles Ogle, his Executor) was required to sign an affidavit that the codicils were, indeed, written in the hand of Charles Asgill. Otherwise they would have been rejected as invalid and Mary Ann wouldn't have got her clock and two vases! Arbil44 (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I thought I'd done it and got it right, but on checking the Landed Families link (which states Asgill was with Mary Ann for two years) there seems to be something wrong because I got this message "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist." It must be something I have done wrong because this https://landedfamilies.blogspot.com/2015/12/197-asgill-of-asgill-house-richmond.html was working fine lzst time I checked. However, I may have messed up references, because this link was already there before I did this edid. Help! Arbil44 (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look in a short while. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. You'd missed the "l" off the end of "html", although because the source was already cited in the article, I've used the existing reference instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting me out of yet another mess! And there was me thinking thzt for once I had got it right! I do think the article is better for having covered the mystery 2 years at the end of his life though. I can do nothing unless it is done by C&P, which is what I did with the Old Tennent cemetery for Huddy yesterday. I copied it from the Huddy article. Does the date need to be changed on the Asgill page because it was only linked there yesterday. See reference No. 9. "CAPTAIN HUDDY'S STORY". ancestry.com. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Retrieved 31 August 2014. Has Opera hat 'retired hurt' - or will he do an article on Mary Ann? Could you ask him, so that I know where I stand. I'm inclined to delete the entire Mary Ann discussion here if it is going nowhere. Arbil44 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. I've also added a link to an archived version of the page, because it no longer exists at the location that was cited. Pinging Opera hat. Generally, talk page discussions shouldn't be deleted because they provide a record of discussions about article content, which might be helpful later. This page is now set up to auto-archive in any case, so the discussion won't stay here for long once it's concluded. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I know this doesn't belong here but I am desperately trying to find page 8 - and a direct link to Asgill's service records - and I don't know how you found page 8! https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4397494 I thought a direct link had been added to the first quote from Asgill's Service Records? I so often use the Wikipedia page for quick answers, but this time :-( Can a link be given now? I've just wasted nearly an hour trying to find this! Arbil44 (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The link I added is to the TNA catalogue entry, here. From there, you need to click the download button and then select the first file. I think this might work as a direct link. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

OMG! TNA really don't make their website user-friendly at all! I got there in the end though. I needed to send the SR to the Journal Editor since they are querying whether or not Asgill endured Peculiar Hardships for six months, or a lesser period of time. Washington made it sound as though being granted parole, to ride his horse for exercise, in itself wiped out the Peculiar Hardships. It didn't. Riding his horse was for exercise to regain his health. But wouldn't it be helpful to link the SR to the quotes from the SR, rather than simply when he went on to half pay? Just a thought! Arbil44 (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's better to use your published article where possible, because the SR is very hard to read and because Wikipedia has a preference for secondary over primary sources. Only where no secondary source is available should we reference the primary source. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Mary Ann Goodchild (otherwise Mansel) draft

Cordless Larry - could the following proposed Wikipedia entry for Mary Ann be a work in progress? I am keen to get on with it, but as you will see I need a little help from you and Opera hat (marked in brackets). The article is much longer than I imagined it would be, but I am sure there are sections you will object to, so maybe it will end up as just two paragraphs?! I'll create a new thread for this because the one above is already much too long. Arbil44 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved to User:Arbil44/sandbox

 – Arbil44 has now copied this content to her sandbox, which is the correct location. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to review a new article, Arbil44, but if you follow the instructions at WP:YFA, you can create a draft and submit it to the formal review process. 08:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope someone else can help me here please? Since I am under COI, and I am related to Mary Ann, I am sure this will be rejected if submitted by me. Besides, I need Opera hat's help (on the officer barracked in Maidstone) and I also need help finding General Manners' will please. It would also help if this article could be corrected in terms of links and quote indents before getting to the submission stage. Thanks in advance. Arbil44 (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary: one of the reasons the draft review system exists is to allow editors to write articles where they have a COI with the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

You have forgotten how terrified I am of the whole IT experience with Wikipedia. I have shed blood sweat and tears for over two months now and don't feel I can cope with it again. The article is now as good as I can make it - until Opera hat can assist with the officer barracked in Maidstone. Otherwise there is nothing further I can do, least of all get the links and quote bits right. Please try to remember that my generation are often scared witless with IT demands. I try my best, but it falls way short of Wikipedia expectations. Arbil44 (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I've quite enjoyed doing the research needed for this article (which has taken me all day), but I cannot go over to the site you suggested Cordless Larry. I would be torn to shreds (tiny little pieces) on account of the mess that the links are in. I think there must be as many as there are on the Asgill page! But I probably don't need Opera hat now - I've worked it out for myself. I guess the article will languish here until someone takes pity on Mary Ann and me! Or maybe not - perhaps it'll remain here for posterity! All I can do is leave a message on Spintendo and Cinderella's talk pages to ask if they know of anyone prepared to help me. Arbil44 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I've tidied up the draft by formatting the links correctly, Arbil44. To understand how to format links correctly in future, please see Help:Link#Wikilinks (internal links) and Help:Cheatsheet. To have the draft accepted for publication, you'll need to make sure that all of the content is supported by published sources. Note that you can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources (you have one quote from the Maidstone article) due to the risk of circular referencing. If the Wikipedia article concerned cites a source, then you should cite that instead (if it doesn't, consideration should be given to removing the material from the article). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

As always I appreciate what you do to help me Cordless Larry. Very much so in fact. I haven't fully read the smartened-up version but I will try to do improvements as you suggest. Please trust me when I say that I had no idea that I would ever try to do another article, until Opera hat sowed the seed. He seemed to think there was some merit in another "Asgill Affair"! I will never try to do so ever again. I doubt the Mary Ann article will be accepted and then that will be the end of that. You know there is only one further thing I want to do, and that is to make some minor amendments to the Asgill and Gordon pages once the Journal has been published. There is another co-author on the front cover now (hugely deserved I might add), so I hope that linking to it, once published, will not preclude me from making those two edits? Most people have a one in a million opportunity to change history (which can only be achieved by introducing something previously deliberately hidden from public view, and which has been the hardest battle of my life to achieve - there were huge obstacles which had to be addressed) and I feel it would be grossly unfair if Wikipedia deprives me of the wonderful moment when I can. We can't all be computer whizz-kids can we, but I do have other talents which seem to be totally bypassed here and for which I am given no credit whatsoever. I know I have caused a lot of trouble to a lot of people, but I was always trying my best to do as I was told. Arbil44 (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Addressing Random Changes Made To The Asgill Article

Random, I know, but I have just noticed that Opera hat changed Lady Sophia Asgill's name from Jemima Sophia to Sophia Charlotte. I have changed it back because, as will be seen here http://www.pastellists.com/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=Jemima+Sophia&zoom_per_page=10&zoom_and=0, her name was Jemima Sophia. I have never ever seen her referred to as Sophia Charlotte before. I really cannot keep up. Only just managed to get 'city' (changed to 'town') put back as it was correctly recorded as 'city'. I must now re-read the entire article to find out what else has changed as the IT facilities are a mystery to me. Arbil44 (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You say "I have never ever seen her referred to as Sophia Charlotte before". Have you read the reference given for the sentence which you changed? If sources differ, you would need to cite a different source. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have changed it back again - kindly note the new reference. And what has happened to my comments regarding the hotwater urn? I gave a full explanation, and requested Opera hat contact the auctioneers who sy they can give more information Perhaps they have recorded the citation since the purchaser, the late Dr. William Bensen is dead. I do not appreciate my comments being deleted. Arbil44 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

You've not made any comments about the urn today according to your contribution history, Arbil44. Perhaps they failed to save? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

That source aside, the majority do appear to give her name as Jemima Sophia. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The reference I gave refers to a portrait painted of Jemima Sophia Ogle. So I take it you are saying that the artist who painted this portrait had no idea who was sitting in front of him? The entry on the link I gave reads "Lady ASGILL, née Jemima Sophia Ogle (1770-1819): Gardner". I fail to see why this is not an acceptable reference? Could someone please give her name as Jemima Sophia since that was her name. Opera hat's link was the very first occasion I had seen Sophia Charlotte. I honestly don't know why I ever bothered to initially create the Asgill article. 18 years of research was destroyed by Biddulph and now I am fighting once more to have the correct information on the page. Can anyone wonder why I have found all this a totl nightmare since 21 August? Can anyone wonder why fights like these have caused me to eventually have a nervous breakdown. It has been a relentless barrage of deleting correct information and inserting rubbish.Arbil44 (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've already done that, but it was a bit more complicated than just replacing the reference, as it was cited twice and when you replaced it, it replaced both instances. We are there now though, and with what I think is a better source. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - I hadn't seen your comment and to avoid all doubt my post was directed to Biddulph not you. I hope you know that. This is getting to be beyond me. I keep having to fight to have my original text restored. I was in touch with the late Dr. William Benson, the purchaser of the hotwater urn, and he provided me with the text of the citation. I do believe that the auctioneer would be able to provide it too, and, since it was Opera hat who is queestioning all this, perhaps he could be the one to approasch the auctioneer for the citation to be provided? William Bensen was a Rhumatologist at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, and was a keen collector. I first tracked him down to ask whether he would be prepared to sell on the hotwater urn to me. I do not see any reason why I should be the one to re-trace my steps from all those years ago to prove my point. Surely the very wording is so 18th century that I surely could not have created that out of thin air could I? Arbil44 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nobody ever apologises here on Wikipedi. Since 21 August I have had to fight tooth and nail to get my work, or at least a very small part of it, restored. Every single time I have been proved right, but never once has anyone apologised for inserting total rubbish in place of my text. Least of all the person who clearly did not believe that I found the original Hoppner portrait (their "Hm, where would that be?" comment made that abundantly clear) - and spent more than a year working on how to get access to it since the owner is a Saudi Prince. Eventually I got access to the prince's palace and photographed it. The result is in all its glory on the Asgill page. Did that person say 2sorry, I was wrong2 - no, of course not. Apologies never happen here. Cordless Larry, I am demoralised and utterly depressed and a complete wreck now that 19 days after my deadline for leaving Wikipedia, here I am, still having to fight. And always, eventually, proved right. Arbil44 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel like that, but we do need to make sure that the content of Wikipedia articles is supported by the sources cited. That wasn't the case with this name, but the issue was resolved quickly. I'm not sure how it could have been dealt with better or more quickly, in fact. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you will find I thanked you Cordless Larry - and you are right, you corrected the two people who had incorrectly changed Lady Asgill's name as quickly as was possible. It was not me to make those mistakes (and give a link to a document which was giving a rubbish name) though. I would expect an apology from the two people responsible, and as you must surely realise there is a time lapse when posts are made without seeing the one before. My comments have not been addressed to you, other than to say that an apology would have been welcome and that since it is Opera hat complaining about the hot water urn he should be the one to sort it out. I dealt with all of that years ago and the auctioneer specifically states that they can provide more information. Arbil44 (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing for them to apologise for though - David changed the name in the article to match the name in the source, which was necessary until a better source was found. As for the urn matter, it's not up to Opera hat to find a source; the burden is on the editor who adds material to an article, as explained at WP:BURDEN. If a published source does not exist, I'm afraid that eventually it will have to be removed. I don't suppose this is something included in your upcoming journal article, is it? That would be a good source if it is. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I am astonished, since you told me this was a collaboration. I'm not complaining about the hot water urn citation, Opera hat is. Furthermore, Opera hat deleted Lady Asgill's correct name, and put in a source which gives an incorrect name - I didn't do that. You corrected it and I thanked you. It would seem you did not receive notification of my thanks some several hours ago. A while back I edited something and put the edit in the wrong place. You demanded an apology and you got one from me immediately. No allowance is ever granted me for not being IT efficient. I try my best and often get the editing wrong. Others don't have that drawback. I do. So now you are telling me this is not a collaboration and I must contact the auctioneers. I trust you will not expect a response from them tomorrow? This item was sold many many years ago and I have no idea how long they will take to provide the additional information on an item of no further interest to them, so I imagine Biddulph will be removing it before I get a response. I thought you, Cordless Larry, knew that I have been on this site round the clock, day and night, for two months trying to get information corrected and reinstalled. Every step of the way has been a real nightmare and my friends and family tell me I am crazy to continue trying. And I have tried to explain that we are facing serious health problems in this house too. Had I not spent 18 years researching the subject then maybe I could walk away. Would you, though, had you spent that amount of your life acquiring information? I will email the auctioneers now, so long as I can find a 'contact us' method. I know the citation was there, but like so many old links, they don't always stay the same. I hope you will give me the time I need to put the matter straight. No, of course the hot water urn will not be mentioned in a new version of the Asgill Affair which goes to the printers at the end of this month. I asked for urgent help here on a matter which is falling between the cracks, but no offer of help was forthcoming, so I deleted the post. People only go around with a wreckng ball it seems. Arbil44 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I did receive your thanks, but I wasn't denying that you thanked me. Anyway, my apologies about the name source - I thought that Opera hat had changed it based on the source that was already cited, but I now see that both the name and the source were changed at the same time. As for the urn citation, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, but we can't summon up sources if they don't exist. I had a search for a source for the quote myself but couldn't find one online. My sense is that there is likely to be no published source available - just the urn itself and perhaps the private records of the auctioneers. Unfortunately, it's always been a basic principle of Wikipedia that we can only include things that readers can confirm by checking the source. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have found the edit with which you added the quote from the urn, here. The source you cited was this page, which still exists and is still cited by the article, but it doesn't include that quote. Do you remember where you got those details from, if not that page? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the citation WAS on the auctioneers website. I have now sent a 'contact us' message to the auctioneers which read: "I have had a link to this item for several years to the Sir Charles Asgill page on Wikipedia. Details about this item being a gift from the people of Clonmel to Asgill were on the listing, but are no longer there. Can they be reinstated urgently pse?". Will I be given a chance to get a reply? Maybe it has been removed already? Arbil44 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to disbelieve the details of the inscription, so I won't remove it any time soon. In the meantime, I will look to see if I can find an archived version of the auction site. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This is what is still on the auctioneers site. "Description: George III Silver Presentation Hot Water Urn William Burwash & Richard Sibley, London, 1807 Presented to Major General Charles Asgill in honor of his defeat of Irish rebels in the town of Clonmel in 1801. The campana-form body with an elaborate crest depicting a Native American squaw and brave above the Asgill family motto Sui Oblitus Commodi; the base with presentation inscription. Marked on underside of base, insert, lid and removable pierced finial. Spigot lacking handle; dent to rim of lid.Height: 16 in (40.6 cm)Weight: 113.7 oz" It all happened so long ago that, possibly, the purchaser sent me a photograph with the citation clearly marked. If I can find that photograph now, after all these years, perhaps I can upload it? If I can be helped again to do so. What would the copyright situation be. Do I have to go all through that rigmarole all over again? Is there any possible way in which it could be understood that I am under immense pressure regarding the publication going to the press in merely days from now? We have struck a serious problem with the lack of receiving copyright permission for an image of Timothy Day's Tavern, Chatham, NJ, which was requested ages ago. I have a real problem on my hnds trying to find an alternative, and now I have this ghastly business taking up my time too. Arbil44 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

As you were typing that, I was looking at the image on that page, which you can view more easily here. It is just about possible to make out the inscription, so it is probably sufficient to verify it for the article. There's no need to upload a photo. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that. I have looked through my files and found the photograph sent to me by Dr. William Bensen, the purchaser. His flash whitens out the middle of the quote (which he must have emailed to me as well, because I have that quote noted too). Actually, it would be nice to show that image too - would that be a problem? Dr Bensen is now dead and he voluntarily sent me his photograph of the urn standing on a table in his hallway. While I am thankful that this is now resolved, do you see what I mean about having to go through such time-wasting hoops all the time as a result of other editor's (incorrect) work on the Asgill page? Shouldn't Opera hat have taken the trouble to look, just as you did, before leaving that compalint? All this continuing to rumble on is seriously making me ill - I hope you know and understand that? Arbil44 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, please will you remove the complaint about the citation on the hotwater urn? Arbil44 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done it. Clearly Cordless Larry is more eagle-eyed than we are. Opera hat (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

While Cordless Larry has been at the forefront of events on the Asgill page, via email, since 21 August, perhaps Cinderella157, who is new to the conversation, will now see what I mean about being targetted? Every single attack has had to be addressed by me, and every single time the page is eventually restored to my text (or reworded by Cordless Larry or Dormskirk to mean the same thing). Apart from the 6 A4 pages of my work permanently culled by Biddulph, that is, which will never be restored. While Opera hat rectified his error, he never thought to apologise for the unjustified hot water urn complaint, and as for changing Asgill's wife's name - well, words fail me. Corddless Larry, how can I leave here? I have to read the page from top to bottom almost daily to find out what has been changed, and to establish where the wrecking ball has landed. Arbil44 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, somehow or other I have managed to upload the image of the hotwater urn. I hope I have done this correctly? Please will you upload it to the Asgill page? It might avoid the same thing happening sgsin in the future? This is the message I got: "Thanks for uploading! You can now use these files on wikis, or link to them on the web". Arbil44 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi - Image of the urn now placed in the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you SO much Dormskirk. Had it not been for you and Cordless Larry I wouldn't even have survived this far (albeit in a broken sort of fashion). You have both shown kindness and helpfullness so many times and I thank you both from the bottom of my heart. Best wishes to you too. Arbil44 (talk) 10:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem, and many thanks for all your very hard work on this. Dormskirk (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Lancaster Online

Dormskirk, the article I was interviewed for has finally appeared today. If you think it appropriate to link it on the Asgill page (because more extensive excerpts from Asgill's letter are now online, although, frankly, the article itself is not well written), could you modify the following in some way?

I hope that this article from Lancaster Online - History journal publishes 233-year-old-letter, appearing in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on 26 January 2020, will be a game changer, because excerpts from Asgill's letter have now been printed online. It will only be available to those within the EU region by using a VPN service provider (legally acceptable within most countries). Arbil44 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

My inclination is not to add it, because as you say, it is not universally available. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What a spoil sport you are. His story is mostly of interest to Americans, who can access it, and he did make it into The Washington Post recently too...and there is much more of his letter online now. But be that as it may. Arbil44 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am rather. My thinking was that, as Asgill was a British Army officer, many readers of the wikipedia article will be British and just get frustrated when the cannot access the article...and there will be little we can do about it. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Worse still, you are taking on the mantle of Meigs and Dana, the Editors of the Newhaven Gazette, who deprived the public (back in 1786), of hearing Asgill's story. It is easy to access anywhere in the world by using a VPN server. Could this be put to other editors for their viewpoint too? I don't personally like the article that much. I don't think it is well written and uses my quotes out of context, so I am not blowing my own trumpet here, if that is what you think? Arbil44 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I am certainly open to the views of other editors on this. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dormskirk. Let battle commence (joking)! I'm having the greatest difficulty editing here today. Could you tell me something - I have 25 tabs open, does that slow things down on my laptop? I've never had this problem before. Arbil44 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself has been down today in the UK this afternoon - I am not sure why. Dormskirk (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Given that sources don't have to be online, I don't see any reason not to use a source that isn't currently accessible in the EU due to complications with GDPR. Hopefully one day, American newspaper websites will sort this problem out, but that doesn't mean we can't use the article as a source in the meantime. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, I've managed to archive a copy of the article, which can be viewed from the EU. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you know what, Cordless Larry, after I saw your edit above (before you added the bit about the archive copy) I went to the Asgill page and very nearly didn't bother clicking on the link because the VPN connection is not on my computer (it's on my husband's). When the link went live I thought you must be some sort of sorcerer! I was flabbergasted! Thank you so much. I am very grateful. Btw, one of several things wrong with the article is how I came by the letter in the first place - and I have been misquoted (wrong context). If only journalists checked with their sources before going to print. I'd be really grateful if you would adjust the entry on my userpage - I feel it likely I'd get it wrong. Arbil44 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - Well done for creating a web archive version which is universally available to all readers. Best wishes and thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - I've amended my userpage. I get very nervous and have zero confidence when editing, hence asking for your help. (Hope we're still friends Dormskirk)! Arbil44 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Dormskirk, I am absolutely gutted. Cordless Larry's masterful work has gone pear-shaped and the link no longer works. What on earth has gone wrong? Has someone in the USA taken the article off The Wayback Machine do you think? This is such a retrograde step. I am terribly upset. In the worst case scenario I could probably get a friend to host it in pdf. format, but CL would have to email it to me first. He'll be at work now and won't see this for some time. I hope there is a better solution. Are you able to look into the 'engine room' to see what has occurred? Arbil44 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am at work myself so would need to look at this tonight. But Cordless Larry seems to have a good solution here and is more likely to know the answer than me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's happened, but I'm at work too and will investigate when I'm finished. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not too sure either. It might just be Wayback being temperamental. I've requested another capture today, which is currently working, so let's see if this one sticks. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. Sadly it isn't working for me though. Might it be "complications with GDPR" getting the better of us in some way?Arbil44 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want the slant after ".html"? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just testing - without the 'slant' to see if it makes any difference? [1] Nope. Sadly not. Arbil44 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I checked just after you replied, Arbil44, and it wasn't working for me either, but now it's working again...as is the version created yesterday. I don't have a clue what's going on! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone just emailed me to say it is working - I'm nervous though, lest it happens again! If you were able to download the article I'd be hugely grateful to have it, if you could email it to me please. It would be a backstop if this happened again! Although I will be getting the hard copies, they do not include Asgill's letter. Arbil44 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Separately, I am waiting for copyright information regarding the Mansel letters from Nthep. If I get the green light, would you be prepared to put the pdf. on the Wayback Machine Cordless Larry? The friend who is currently hosting the letters is, like me, old! I have no idea how long he will have his website to host the file. Arbil44 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it can be used to store files, Arbil44. As far as I know, it only archives live webpages (i.e. that are already online). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right, I thought you must have downloaded the article and then stored it. Arbil44 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Summit New Jersey, by Edmund B. Raftis

Nthep, yet more copyright issues I’m afraid. I wish to use the map from this book [2], which shows the location of the pub in which Asgill was imprisoned. Someone in Summit NJ (where I was told the author lived) was supposed to be dealing with this for me, since before Christmas, but I have now given up waiting for this to happen. So I searched for the publisher, Great Swamp Press, but the reply I received was that they were a totally different company (by the same name, which, ironically, publishes maps). My Google search would suggest that the 1998 firm used by Raftis no longer exists. [3] I have searched the Summit White Pages and nobody by the name of Edmund B. Raftis is listed [4]. I believe he is/was an old man, so possibly he has died. Have I made all reasonable efforts to find the copyright holder, or what must I now do? Arbil44 (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

No idea if you have seen the above message Nthep, but the man at the wrong Great Swamp Press took pity on me and has tracked Raftis down in Seattle. I have now written to EBR, as well as phoning him twice (and being diverted to an answering machine each time). In addition, FB messages have been sent to him, his son and his ex-wife, to which no response has been forthcoming. My experience of mail to and from the US is appalling, so I am not expecting a speedy resolution. Btw, the Raftis book was the worst of all bad books chronicling Asgill's plight. I have never seen so many mistakes - and insults hurled at Asgill - ever before. It is painful to have to grovel to him for his cooperation now. Arbil44 (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have the co-ordinates you can use the Wikipedia location maps to create a pin-push map on a page. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I wish! While it is a location map it depicts how things were in 1782, so another way of looking at it is that it is a sketch of the Chatham NJ area (what is now called Summit), as much as being a map. My daughter is artistic and I think she will be able to draw a good enough replica. The big downside will be the writing which is currently printed in a very small font, but I don't know how to superimpose writing over what she could draw. Actually, I have a feeling that if we scanned the drawing into a pdf. document we might be able to superimpose text boxes or something, to incorporate the writing. I don't know, I am totally useless on IT related matters. But what then? May I call it my own work (so much simpler when uploading and I can see this turning into a family affair with more than my daughter involved!) and do I need to say that it is a replica from the book and name the book and author? Arbil44 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Nthep, please let me know what I can and can't do because I have wasted my day, so far, trying to superimpose typed text onto a screenshot document. I don't know how I am going to proceed, but don't want to waste more time trying if there are going to be copyright issues at the end of the day - please see the last sentence of my post above. Arbil44 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Arbil44: does the map show where in Summit NJ the pub was, sufficiently that it can be located on a modern map? If so then we can create a pushpin map of the location within Union County NJ without any copyright issues as data i.e. map co-ordinates are not copyrightable. Union Couty is the lowest level of map currently available on Wikipedia and I'm not sure of the relevance of going any further down in detail for such a minor detail as where he was confined. Nthep (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks you for your comments Nthep. The map/sketch in the book is cute! It shows what the area was like in 1781 - and who lived where. It shows the pub and it shows where Colonel Dayton lived. It is all very relevant to the wider story of what happened to Asgill there. He was confined to Dayton's house initially, where he was very well looked after. The two men formed a kind of friendship, even though enemies. Washington ordered that he be moved from there because he was having too much of a good time for a man destined to go to the Gallows and ordered that he be moved to close confinement. For whatever reason, I don't know, Dayton sent him to Day's Tavern, a hotbed of revolutionary ardour, where he was abused, beaten and starved round the clock. (His crime was to have picked his name out of a hat, for all this to happen to him). I like the map in the book. I have drawn it again myself and it is more or less ready to be uploaded. Apart from the three roads, the river and the 20 or so houses, marked by dots, my rendition doesn't look very much like the original. However, a modern map could be used. The pub stood where (approximately) 19 Iris Road, Summit now stands. I just might be able to identify Dayton's house too, because it was knocked down to make way for a motorway in the 1970s and it is where Canoe Brook Golf Course is now situated (the motorway cuts the golf course in two). Apparently some of Dayton's outbuildings are still on the golf course. While I went to Iris Road (amongst other places) last year I didn't actually go to the golf course, so it would be more of a guess for Dayton's house. The other development is this - I have tracked down the artist who drew the map. I am going to try to telephone him in Summit NJ soon (in the next hour or so - just got back from a hospital appointment and need some refreshments first). If I get his permission to use the map I will come back and ask you if I also need the author's permission as well. I think it highly unlikely that I will get permission from Raftis now. Too much contact has been made and ignored. Please keep an eye on messages I leave here, once I know more. Failing all else then this push-pin map may be the answer, but I have no idea how to do it myself.Arbil44 (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Nthep (and Dormskirk), I rang and got no reply from the artist, Christopher Badgley. I have now written to him by snail mail, because his map is charming and really demonstrates how sparsely populated Chatham was in 1781. I shall continue to try to contact him and get a response. In the meantime I have made a screenshot of the area using OpenStreetMap. I take it I can superimpose on this the locations of the two main places of interest, Timothy Day's Tavern and Dayton's home? May I go ahead and upload this shortly, once the superimposed place names have been added? Could Dormskirk please let me know if the following edit on the Asgill page, to accompany the screenshot, would be acceptable in order to give a reason for using the modern (so ugly and inappropriate by comparison) map?

"On page 44 of Summit New Jersey, From Poverty Hill to the Hill City by Edmund B. Raftis there appears a map of Chatham in 1781. Clearly marked is the home of Colonel Elias Dayton and also Timothy Day’s Tavern, the first and second locations of Asgill’s imprisonment. From this map it would appear that the population of Chatham at that time was approximately 50 households, most of these homes having been marked with the names of the occupants. A 21st century map shows that the present day location of Timothy Day’s Tavern would be in the vicinity of 19 Iris Road and Dayton’s house was on what is now Canoe Brooke Golf Course." The main source for knowing about Timothy Day's Tavern is the Journal and this is information never before known in connection with The Asgill Affair. I will be unable to do the source link myself because it is linked several times already. Sorry, but I'm feeling really frazzled by all this now and I am bound to make a mistake. Arbil44 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The thought of the dreaded IT involved in doing the above has started to make me feel ill and so I simply had to get it behind me. When I make mistakes I get my wrists slapped. I am frequently threatened with being banned for all sorts of mysterious reasons. These approaches seem to be Wiki-defaults. I just need to get on now so that I don't have to live with these dreads ahead of me. Dormskirk, if I have got something wrong (I mentioned above about the Journal being linked too many times) please correct. The James Gordon page has far too many links to Samuel Graham's Memoirs too and so please could you sort that as well? If I have got something wrong, I apologise in advance - I try very hard, but often fail.Arbil44 (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I have consolidated a few of the references on the James Gordon page to Samuel Graham's Memoirs (where they relate to the same page). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dormskirk. Please check out what I have done today. It isn't right and I knew the source/reference (14) would go wrong. There are a lot of references to the Journal too. Arbil44 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

It does now, 'cos you corrected my mistake! Thank you again. Arbil44 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the statement "From this map it would appear that..." comes across as original research. Does the journal source offer this interpretation of the map? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No, so I have removed the part you don't like. The Journal also wanted to use the map from the Raftis book but wasn't prepared to go to the lengths I have gone to to try to obtain permission. I have gone to extreme lengths to try to achieve this and still Raftis and Badgley are ignoring me. If only they could give a straightforward and simple "NO" rather than leaving me not knowing if they have received my multiple efforts to contact them. I have brought myself to the point of another nervous breakdown over all this. Nobody here understands what a nightmare it all is when hampered by lack of IT skills. Everything I try to do takes me simply hours of my time. Please would you correct the nonsense I have made on my userpage, linking the map there? I have failed to insert an 07 and my link to Dayton hasn't worked either. A link to the Dayton page should also be on the map on the Asgill page, but I really cannot do it. I was threatened with being banned for letting my father use my account - a man who died nearly 30 years ago, and now (having, I thought, had permission to link them) I am being told that the Mansel letters are not OK (the last one being written in 1835). For me, all that remains now is to get some details about Cyril and Marjorie Lloyd (I rang his niece again yesterday about that) and, hopefully, for Dormskirk to make an edit on the Washington page, then I really am done and can leave, which I have been trying to do since 1 October last year. Cordless Larry, I really really wish you would ring me. I am a complete wreck now. Or Dormskirk - you know how to find my number. Dialling 141 first hides your own number. I honestly need to talk with one of you. Please ring me.Arbil44 (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, while I immediately removed the text you were referring to I knew there was something playing on my mind as I did so, but I removed it before I had thought it through. Concurrently I am having dramas on the copyright queries page and everything was hitting me at once. There are two references in the text acompanying the map. The Journal refers to the fact that it is now known that Asgill was imprisoned in Timothy Day's Tavern, so that is covered by that source. The Raftis book covers a different aspect - and that is the actual location of TDT. It is a charming map and I am saddenened that I have not (yet anyway) got copyright permission. The map shows the location of Elias Dayton's house too, the first prison for Asgill. The map also shows approximately 50 homesteads in Chatham in 1781 and gives the names of the occupants for most of them. I thought that was not only charming (one man owned two houses!), but fascinating that the town was so lightly populated then. If I can give the Raftis book as the reference for the locations of the two Asgill prisons, why cannot I expand that information on the other households too? I would ask you to reconsider your decision on this please.Arbil44 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the wording "it would appear that" suggests an element of interpretation, rather than established and incontestable fact, and interpretations always require attribution to a source. So my question would be, was the sentence your interpretation of the map, or something that the map shows to be a fact? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the fifty or so dots (difficult to count them totally accurately, but it is definitely 50 + or =) show other residents just as clearly as they show TDT and Dayton's house. There is nothing whatsoever interpretational about my contention. It is a very plain map. Esssentially just 3 roads and the 50 dots. I was hoping to use just the northern section of the map, but the 50 dots relates to the whole of Chatham in 1781. The interesting part is to know who else lived there at the time, not that their names ring any bells with me in terms of Asgill's story, but it is a brief glimpse of how things were and how few people lived there. Having been there last year it is quite a shock! I was pleased to see a Vanderpoel! The Vanderpoel book listed on Asgill's page was the very best book I have read regarding Asgill. Vanderpoel agonises as to why on earth Asgill never had his right of reply! And he really tries to give Asgill a fair hearing. Unlike Raftis who condemns him as little more than a criminal. The other thing to mention is that when the book was written nobody had any idea that Asgill had been imprisoned in TDT - the only book to mention that is the Journal! If you felt you could reword the sentence and reinstate that would be good. Arbil44 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

In that case, rewording to something like "The map shows..." should work. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've only just seen this. Notifications have stopped working and I didn't know you had replied. I was on the Washington talk page until 3am, so I am too exhuausted to deal with the map, but will come back to it. It would be really apprciated if you could join Team Asgill on the Washington talk page, if you, too, want Wikipedia to be unbiased and convey the tuth of Washington's letter of 18 May 1782. The editors there have never heard of Asgill and don't seem to know what is under discussion. Arbil44 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You might have been expecting notification of replies because I'd pinged you on previous occasions, Arbil44, but didn't do above. As you might be able to tell from my lack of activity recently, I have very little spare time for Wikipedia at present. Sorry about that. Hopefully I'll have more time soon. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)