|Military history WikiProject|
|Articles for review|
|See the full list of open tasks|
Happy New Year Hlj!
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Happy Anniversary and Thanks
Today is my 10th anniversary editing Wikipedia! I am sorry to say that over the last couple of years my velocity of editing new and significantly improved articles has diminished a good deal, but I do check my watchlist daily. Greetings and thanks to all of my friends who have helped me in my efforts over the decade to document and map the American Civil War! Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment about casualties
- I fixed it. That erroneous claim has been there since 2005 and I never noticed it! Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
"A truly decisive battle must decide consequences beyond military issues of tactical importance and operational significance. A decisive battle must directly lead to a rapid resolution of the contested political issues because the results on the battlefield caused both sides to agree that a decision had been reached."
Second sentence, when fully interpreted, would say, "Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln exchanged telegrams on July 4, 1863, and agreed, the war is over with Jefferson Davis concluding, 'we were wrong all along and we reverse secession.'"
Preparatory salvo fired at BoG Talk page. I have been studying this issue for two years and have thousands of words prepared, all well-researched and completely sane, to enter into the discussion.Donaldecoho (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this old issue if you must. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Lee's Battle Plan
I noticed my edit introducing Lee's battle plan was undone, but I'm confused by the reason, which said "the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the main article, not a place to introduce opinions".
The citation described in detail how Lee had planned to attack the flanks to shift forces from the center, then attack a weakened center.
- (also sent via email...) The lead section of an article (the few paragraphs that appear before the table of contents or first section header) are supposed to be a summary of the cited material in the main text of the article. Thus, you don't introduce new, cited material in the lead section. If you want to include that cited material in the main part of the article, it can then be summarized in the lead. (In this case, in my humble opinion, this particular opinion by Troy Harman about Lee's previous battles does not warrant being summarized in the lead.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Shepherdstown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Barnes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Battle of Perryville and 33rd Alabama Infantry
Hal, I've been following the edit war on the Battle of Perryville page and just finished talking with Kurt Holman, manager of the Perryville Battlefield. He writes:
"I have the 33rd with 380 guys to start with: 14 killed, 153 wounded, 0 missing, total of 167 or 44% casualties."
So the NPS citation that the other editor has been using is clearly incorrect.
- Thanks for the confirmation, although I certainly would not have called it an editing war just yet. If that 82% had been correct, this regiment would be routinely cited along with the 26th North Carolina or the 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you!
|The Jedediah Hotchkiss
Barnstar of Diligence
|I award you this unique barnstar to recognize
and thank you for your outstanding, diligent map-making
for many Wikipedia articles (and recently, for new books).
Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Because of my limited ability, copying a prior template and patching something together is the best I could do, but it is well-intentioned. I thought giving you a unique barnstar along these lines would be appropriate. I thought I would do my best with the idea and use it to give you some recognition and thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia cite for mountain howitzers has a picture at Gettysburg attributed to you and labled as a mountain howitzer. Are you sure it is not a 12 lb howitzer (788 lbs weight) and not a mountain howitzer (220 lbs weight)? We are unfamiliar with any mountain howitzer with dolphins. Bill Cossitt firstname.lastname@example.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it has been probably a decade since I contributed any artillery photos, so I do not remember the one in question. What article and/or what image are you referring to? Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Map information sources
Hi! I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination of George S. Greene article, and there seems to be one outstanding issue where you might be of assistance. The article employs two maps: Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Evening.png and Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Defenses.png - which look great. The Commons records indicate that you are the author of those two, but there appears to be no indication of source of information presented in the maps, i.e. it does not say what are they based upon - another map, a description of the defenses/attack or otherwise. At present, the Commons simply indicate "Engelsk wikipedia" as the source, which is not acceptable for GA per WP:CIRCULAR policy. Could you please comment at Talk:George S. Greene/GA1 page on the maps' source(s) or add information on the sourcing to the Commons. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I base my maps on a variety of primary and secondary sources. As such, I am a secondary source provider in my own right, widely published, and a citation to "map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com" is technically all you need. However, this citation is included within the "File:" page of Wikimedia, and is typically not shown directly in the articles that include the maps--you have to click on the image to see the citation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note.
Well, I trust that the maps are accurate, but the Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V) requires that information can be attributed to a reliable, published source. Self-published sources are generally not considered acceptable per WP:SPS. Now, I was scanning for possible publications of those maps, and found this book, containing a map (on p.185) attributed to you which generally looks just like the the Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Evening.png. If you don't mind I'd like to add that ref to the Commons and thus provide source for that image.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note.
- Never mind the previous note. The WP:SPS does allow self-published sources for published experts, and the previously mentioned book, IMO duly establishes such circumstances. I'll check with MILHIST coords how exactly should the reference be handled, if anything is needed at all. Thanks for the help. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have done over 200 maps for Wikipedia, including a number of Featured Articles, and no one has ever asked for this. Yes, Hoptak's book has a black and white copy of this Wikipedia map, but it is rather backwards to cite something that was copied from Wikipedia. FYI, I have professionally published over 1000 maps in (over 100) books, magazines, and websites, so I do not think that self-published is the appropriate way to look at my work. (I wrote this paragraph at the same time you were updating the page again.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did not mean to put down your work, and I accepted it is accurate in good faith. I apologize if I made any such impression. I'm surprised that nobody asked such a question at FA level though. I simply did not have the information you were published until you pointed that out for me. GA (as well as FA) review process is meant to enforce WP:V and WP:SPS as policies and a soon as I had the information that the WP:SPS exception (and thus WP:V requirement) is met, I was quite happy to accept the maps as needing no further references. Short of that information, I was compelled to request a reference per WP:V. Once again, I'm sorry if that came accross wrong. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- No offense taken. I have been editing on Wikipedia for over 10 years and am familiar with most procedures. I long ago gave up any efforts to classify my articles as good/featured articles because you are subjected to the whims of random reviewers, who hold you hostage to get the sometimes arbitrary changes they would like to see. Since I don't care about the little GA/FA badges, I can reject with impunity anything I don't agree with. :-) The issue here is not whether I produce accurate work, it is whether I am considered a secondary source or not, because if I am, no further footnotes beyond my name and publication title are necessary. As a related example, if you had permission from the Civil War Trust to use one of their maps by Steve Stanley (which you do not), you would merely cite Civil War Trust in the Wikimedia page, not ask for footnotes about where they got the information in the map. Since I am a widely published cartographer now, I think I qualify as a secondary source. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)