User talk:Hlj/archive2006

Seminary Ridge / South Mountain

My point was that the South Mountain referred to here is not the one in Maryland, but a reader of the disambig page not familiar with the geography (like me) might well think it was the same one, particularly since the MD South Mountain also has a Civil War role. Hence the extra precision, resulting in a redlink. Colonies Chris 17:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Jackson's Mill and Cummins Jackson

I just did a little work on these two articles. You may want to apply your touch for accuracy/corrections. Mark Vaoverland 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

South Mountain again

I have no personal knowledge of the area, so I'm just going by the atlas. There seems to be more than a little scope for confusion over this name. According to Encarta & Multimap, there's a South Mountain PA about 10 miles a little North of West from Gettysburg (and about 8 miles SE of Chambersburg). This must be the South Mountain that's mentioned in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (The Borough of Gettysburg ... sits in the shadow of South Mountain, eight miles west of the town). And it must surely be the South Mountain that's mentioned in Gettysburg Battlefield (To the northwest, a series of low, parallel ridges lead to the towns of Cashtown and Chambersburg. Seminary Ridge, .... Farther out are McPherson's Ridge, Herr's Ridge, and eventually South Mountain).

According to Battle of South Mountain, South Mountain is the name given to the continuation of the Blue Ridge Mountains after they enter Maryland. It is a natural obstacle that separates the Shenandoah Valley and Cumberland Valley from the eastern part of Maryland. And certainly South Mountain PA is part of a range of hills that to the northwest connects to the Blue Ridge mountains and to the south extends into MD. So it seems to me that we sort of have two places, because South Mountain PA is a specific peak (mentioned in the Gettysburg articles) in a range which becomes known as South Mountain in MD (where the battle took place). (Does this range of hills have another name in PA?) Colonies Chris 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and from someone who not only has spent a lot of time with the history books but also driving around and hiking through South Mountain... South Mountain properly refers only to the "continuation of the Blue Ridge Mountains" etc. It is called that in Maryland and is also called that in Pennsylvania as well, where it extends deeply into the state starting roughly at Pen-Mar and cutting northeast towards Harrisburg. Very few individual peaks in South Mountain are individually named. The specific South Mountain, PA seems to just be the actual name of a small town nestled against this high ridge, rather than the name of a specific peak. All the histories of Gettysburg that I have read refer to South Mountain as this larger expanse of peaks strung together, not a specific peak. I'll check out the two CW articles and see how the situation is treated.--Apostlemep12 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Little Jack - pine knots

There is already so much in his bio I thought it might fit better here. The story came from a source on Jackson's Mill. I don't feel strongly about it. Vaoverland 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cummins Jackson

What an interesting backstory about Old Jack's uncle!! I'll take a look at Walter Gwynn. Mark Vaoverland 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the senior Confederate officer of that rank

Hi this is babyrina2. Saw your edit restoring the curious phrase "...the senior Confederate officer of that rank." Yes, ol' pete was a senior officer, and a Confederate one at that. Pardon my ignorance, but can you please explain why this phrase is neccessary as it seems to me nothing more than an amplification of a fact. 'Less being a Confederate Lt. Gen. was really something of a big deal...

Shaw Memorial

thanks a million times for flipping the Shaw Memorial photograph. I have never tried changing pictures that are already posted, being rather slow at leaping into new things, so I appreciate your fixing this one. Carptrash 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day

I've added a snippet from the Gettysburg Compiler regarding sharpshooters during this engagement. You may want to rearrange things. I do feel that it adds additional substance to the article, however. I have also loosened up the "may have been staged" wording regarding the picture therein. The text from the Compiler indicates that the body was at the very least disturbed by investigating soldiers. ... aa:talk 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness

Maybe the Dohfast1 Affair does not merit further consideration. I will drop the matter. I would like to point out (and you can verify via http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/wiki_soap.html if you look) that one of the two books I bother to list in my previous account [1] is:

• Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson (Ballantine Books, Reissue 1989) ISBN 0345359429

I expect that you are already aware of it. I have found my studies of the Civil War to be an escapist mechanism for coping with my own failed Union with my ex-wife. AWM -- 24.23.195.88 10:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply here because you posted anonymously. I reverted a long, rambling, and profane posting to the Wilderness talk page. If you have a specific suggestion that you can make in a manner I can understand, I will take a look at it. Hal Jespersen 15:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Pacific pages

Hal -

Let's not go back and forth on user pages. I made my commnets here [[For the changes made today, refer to Category_talk:Campaigns_of_the_Pacific_Coast_Theater_of_the_American_Civil_War. evrik 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. I appreciate your work. evrik 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For his tireless work to improve articles on the American Civil War. evrik 23:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Chickahominy River

I have been working on the history section of the Chickahominy River article. I am unclear on several points: Did McClellan retreat toward Harrison's Landing (Berkeley Plantation) or City Point? The latter is of course on the south side of the James, and I speculate General McClellan would not consider it an easy place to reach while being pursued by the rebels. Also, ddin't McClellan's forces establish a supply point on the Pamunkey upstream from West Point, perhaps near White House?

Could you please read over the rest of the history sections, and edit it to bring it up to your usual level of accuracy? We also have the old miles vs kilometers issue earlier in the article.

BTW, I recently completed a small article about Walter Gwynn's Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad. Cheers. Mark in Historic Triangle. Vaoverland 23:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Chickahominy River

I had the same thoughts about wandering off the subject of the river itself. Perhaps a lot of that could be condensed to dovetail (and refer) to your other articles. I think the unique weather-changing nature of the river and its impact upon McClellan's campaign is the only part really noteworthy. I am done, unless you feel I should do the preceding instead of you. (You are in a better position to coordinate edits with the other articles). Mark Vaoverland 01:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

rewrite of Peninsula Campaign

I enjoyed your work, and hope you don't mind that I tweaked a couple of items (for added clarity, I hope). I will look foward to your new graphics when they are ready. Mark Vaoverland 06:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unionist

I am bothered by that term also. It did not originate with me. Mark Vaoverland 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven Days

As I have come to anticipate, your graphics are superb, and are a great improvement. Mark Vaoverland 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An opinion needed

Would you look at this page? Category:American Civil War regiments by state evrik 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Devils Den GB.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Devils Den GB.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Lee's Maryland Campaign up to Antietam: Raid or Invasion?

Hi there, I'm currently doing some research on Antietam and Lee's incursion into Western Maryland and I had a quick question I was wondering if you could resolve. McPherson often describes Lee's campaign in terms of an invasion; he even goes so far as to offer the possiblity of Lee taking a major northern city. However, authors like Gallagher often portray the Maryland campaign as more of a large-scale raid, in that Lee would not be able to plausibly hold a large slice of northern territory and would eventually be forced to withdraw. Which version do you subscribe to, raid or invasion?

You should sign your posts with four tildas if you expect a response anywhere besides here. Anyway, that is an interesting question. I think the term invasion is most widely used (for both Antietam and Gettysburg) and I think we should continue to use it in the article. However, it actually was more of a strategic raid. Lee had no expectations that he would be able to maintain control over Northern territory for longer than the fall of 1862. The Wikipedia article on invasion opens with "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government." Lee was, in fact, attempting to alter the established government of United States, but he was doing it by attempting to affect civilian morale, and therefore the 1862 congressional elections. So it's quite a gray area. Hal Jespersen 16:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Something for you...

I hereby present you with the Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award for your significant contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of the Civil War. —Kirill Lokshin 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Nearest City" for Vicksburg NMP

The choice of Jackson as the "nearest city" for Vicksburg NMP is an offshoot of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas#Nearest city. Someone thought the field should show the nearest airport city, another thought the nearest place for supplies was sufficient.

I made a judgement call based on the question is: how familiar are English speakers worldwide about Vicksburg versus Jackson? Which is more recognizable? I thought Jackson was probably more recognizable (plus it has an airport), and therefore the "nearest city." It is even referenced in the NPS "plan your visit" page for Vicksburg NMP.[2] Obviously Vicksburg, Mississippi is closer, and if you think it is recognizable enough, fine. However, in that case I would simply delete the link in the "nearest city" field altogether (as I did for Touro Synagogue). — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and just deleted that field in the case of Vicksburg. I may slowly revise these infobox fields on various articles I have worked on, including national battlefields. So don't be suprised if you see similar edits -- sometimes not listing a "nearest city" at all, and sometimes listing one, all on a case-by-case basis. — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Period after/before quotations

My apology, I was not aware the other style is as widely prevalent as others say it is. As a test, I randomly went through about 15 books, trying to find an instance where the period was every outside the quotation marks, and I could not find one example. Perhaps I did not read enough from a wide variety of publishers. In a way, I can see placing the period outside the quotes if it was not part of the quoted material. For example Don Rumsfeld says "The Department of Defense is in desperate need of more tanks to finish the war in Iraq." A reporter quotes the line as Rumsfled says we are in "desperate need of more tanks". (With the period after.) But in these cases, one should used ellipses points to show there was additional material after the quote, i.e. "desperate need of more tanks..." rather than the inserting of a period after the quotation marks. Every dictionary I have, plus the Handbook of Technical Writing, Garner's book on technical usage, all state to always place the period inside quotation marks.

In etymology usage, Chickamauga "river of death" is a meaning that is not effected whether the period is outside or inside the quotes, and it is also not a direct quote from a named person or reference. In Robert Hendrickson's massive book Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins and every other etymology book I have, the period always is placed inside the quotes. Because the standard is to place periods inside with regards to etymology or toponymy, I would tend to stay with this method. Excuse the rambling on this topic, and excellent work on your Civil War articles.--LibraryLion 21:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Military Aviation History

I don't mind the pruning. I toss out the material and others can cut it to what's appropriate. I was trying to find someway for someone to edit all I had to write, but there seemed to be no one who could answer my how-to's. I'll take you're remarks into consideration and pare down this article.

Thanks Magi Media 02:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Review my truncated version of the article Magi Media 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

William Tecumseh Sherman

I'm pushing Sherman for featured article. Not many people have responded, but one objection was that it could use more footnotes, which I've been working on. Could you provide a reference for the information you added a while ago for Vicksburg and Chattanooga? The article now uses to new foonote format, so this should be easy to add: You just need to include <ref>Text of foonote</ref> at the appropriate point in the article. (See also WP:FN). Thanks. -- Eb.hoop 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hal. Many thanks for the references and additions to the article on Sherman. -- Eb.hoop 06:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for all of your help with the article on Sherman. I read your comments in my talk page and went ahead and changed back the format of the date in the lead. I personally prefer the quotes in the current format, but I'm not that active in Wikipedia and don't know if Template:Quotation is the new accepted standard. I leave it to you (or anyone else interested) to decide whether to change the format. - Eb.hoop 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

==A WITCH HUNT AND MY SUBSIQUENT HANGING,OVER A BELOVED PRESIDENT, IS OVER.==

I have had several views of an old photograph that would clear it up, but some others use my screen name cathitreks or cathy treks or cathytreks , they are NOT me yet why does everybody have it out for me here for trying to show the truth as I believe it to be!?

I only sought the acceptance of my proofs ..........and have miserably failed. I am leaving your cleec (sp)...now sadly for me, yet maybe happily for many here after the latest attacks and smears for me, for what I genuinely believe in., and now some comments about my credentials that do not dignify a reply,

Fine...im leaving the Lincoln page you decide upon, and the narrow mindedness forever, here in what seems to be a ROSE COLOURED Lincoln Candyland only!...But folks, let us never leave the man alone in our hearts.

     A PERSONAL HERO WHOM ALL LOVE!

            ABRAHAM LINCOLN!

Lincoln in 1847

I'm sadly leaving this place filled with much misunderstanding from many of the wiki "comunity" and withdraw from all of you, those who dont understand my sincere motives over a issue that seems hopeless to show or debate even amounst most of you, im sorry.,... I'm really very sorry, goodbye everybody..... I only sought truth.

I am heartsick over some of your attacks upon a sincere belief regardng the evidence I tried to present, my cousin in N.Z. did post under my name with my blessings as she believed too and tried to help show we were right, sorry you dont agree.

I really wonder what Lincoln would say over it all if he could?....

Somehow I believe he'd be sorry for we who sought the truth as some of the few here did, unlike the sheep who followed the wolves

shalom

....."a couple of misunderstood jewish girl's from both the old and new worlds bow from the stage here forever on this debate."

So...see ya round the galaxy! (Cathytreks 00:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC))

Image:Antietam Overview.jpg

I understand your rationale for using .jpg, but .png files are of higher quality in this instance, and some of the fuzzy areas in this .jpg version would be crisp in .png format. Thanks for the good image, though. --tomf688^{talk} 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I know the authentic history of the lincoln death photo

I have viewed the antique photographs and writtings of Bachelder, I made a appt to see the materials at the NEW HAMPSHIRE HISTORICAL society, in Concord N.H. near the state capitol building, ask for directions...better yet, call or email them.

the Bachelder photos/materials are genuine, and Orstendorf was a true Lincoln Scholar, and writer of several important civil war related books, very important, not a "collector"...He spent his entire life studying Lincoln's life and his subsiquent death! (Cathytreks 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

adminship

I stated your preference on your adminship page I will remove the tag at the top of your talk page. --BrenDJ 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven Days Battles - typo?

In the "opposing forces" section is this bullet:

Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, having just arrived from his victories in the Valley Campaign, commanded a force consisting of *his own division* (now commanded by Brig. Gen. Charles S. Winder) and those of Maj. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, Brig. Gen. William H. C. Whiting, and Maj. Gen. D.H. Hill.

Shouldn't that be "his own *brigade*", which would be more in line with the other bullets? Alternatively, if the text is correct, perhaps it should be mentioned that his part of the army was as big as the others combined (or his divisions were very small?). Hirudo 17:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Update*: In the Battle of Beaver Dam Creek article it also says divisions, so I assume it's not a typo. I'm still curious as to the relative troop numbers then though. Hirudo 18:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Regimental names

First, thanks for editing my articles. Second, I'm expanding the stubs of the Pennsylvania Civil War regiments and writing articles for several more. I was wondering if the Union army prefered calling the regiments "Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry" or "Pennsylvania Regiments." You can answer me on my talk page. Thanks. Wild Wolf 02:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your help. Wild Wolf 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for JLC Chamberlain Edits

Great job. Good clarification. SimonATL 21:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew´s page

Hi there, dear Hlj. I wanted to tell you about a page that I have just uploaded. It´s about Malinda Blalock, the celebrated woman who changed her sex to fight together with her husband Keith. You may write me back, telling me your thoughts. Anytime. --AndresArce 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

Andrew again

Hello, dear Hlj. I´m checking the those links now. Thank You for the tips. Anytime.--AndresArce 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

Jackson and slavery

I feel the recent changes really shed light on this subject. Good job (as always?!) Mark Vaoverland 19:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bragg

I just wrote a historiography paper on Bragg. I have the sources for the areas you believe need citation but I lack the time because of school and knowledge on how to cite on wikipedia. Could you cite for me if I provide the information to you?

Possibly, depending on the information you provide. I don't intend to go out and buy new books or find a library. You should find that the style of citations I just edited may be easy enough to copy. The point is you have to back up assertions with one of two things: (1) info from earlier in the article; (2) citations to reputable secondary sources. For instance, you can't say "some of his defeats were due to bad luck" without naming the battles (there or earlier) and explaining the luck. Or can't name Polk as troublesome without telling why. Hal Jespersen 12:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I can provide author and page number no problem I just don't know how to on wikipedia. I know being a graduate student that I have to cite but thanks for pointing out the lack of information on Polk's strengths and weaknesses. I'll edit that into it after I give you the information. In reference to the Bragg article I can get the citation on Polk and the lack of Davis’s support in a few days because I need to fish out my copy of Woodworth from New Orleans. As for the citation on the Confederacy’s misuse of Bragg here it is as follows: McWhiney, p. 391-92. Thanks for your openness. 147.174.150.24 10:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Sean C.

"We're not worthy! We stink!"

Thanks for your contribution to the ACW intro. Sorry if my enthusiasm puts you in anyone's crosshairs, but you've certainly raised the rhetorical bar. Very dense, broad strokes and solid narrative. I'm on board. BusterD 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I like mixing them too. I think the group needs to "work toward consensus." If that means we need to vote, perhaps we should make an issue of it. It's time to push this article harder, though I'm very much enjoying researching and working on some personal things. Thanks again for contributing to the discussion. As I was saying to another user, I get a distinctly different pleasure out of being involved with the ACW page I don't get from writing my own stuff. BusterD 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Map drawing

Hi Hlj, I saw your Battle of Gettysburg maps, and wow, I'm impressed. I'm working on an article right now that needs a map, and I was wondering if you had any pointers. How did you go about drawing it? Just copying existing maps as best you could? And then you used layers for the various components (roads, troop lines, forests, etc.)? I've never attempted to draw anything like this where precision is important, so I'm curious as to how I should go about doing this. Thanks for your time! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Do you know of any free software (inkscape, etc.) that would allow me to do this? I don't have access to Illustrator right now. Also, when you say, "share work with others", what do you mean? Can't I save as a .svg email the file? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 23:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:American Civil War Generals

It has been proposed to eliminate the Confederates from this list (as they already have their own separate category) and replace this category with Union Army Generals (which does not exist today as its own entity. I support this. Also, should there be a convention that any general should NOT be also duplicated in American Civil War people, keeping that category for civilians, politicians, spies, soldiers and other folks associated with the war, but not necessarily general officers? Your thoughts, particularly on the first question? I am willing to take the time to eliminate the references in each Confederate general's article. Scott Mingus 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hal, this was proposed on the talk page for the category. I thought it sounded like a good idea, since the Confederates had their own space. Scott Mingus 12:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrew´s Page

Hello, Hlj. I have just written a page about Fort Fisher. I would like that You may check it and -- later -- you may tell me your qualification. I´m particularly interested about grammatical issues. Anytime. --AndresArce 13:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)AndresArce

Thanks!

Thank's for cleaning up my edit to Ulysses S. Grant - I have had a wee bit too much Advocaat, and some of my edits reflect this. I will stick to smiting vandals. HawkerTyphoon 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

March to the Sea & March order

Hi! You have reverted several of my well-intended edits to Sherman's March to the Sea. I left a note on the article's Talk page and I'd appreciate a response. Thanks! --ElKevbo 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Well, I drew my map (see Image:Operation Auca Map.svg) using layers in Inkscape. Worked out nicely, though it's not the greatest map—I didn't try to smooth out too many of the corners of the lines I drew, but it's not noticeable at the image sizes most people will see. So thanks for giving me the info I needed to get started. I was slightly confused by your last note, however—I don't understand why you have the .png versions on Wikipedia. Why not upload .svg versions so that people can edit them? Is that not an option in Freehand? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Harnden page

Thanks for the cleanup of the Henry Harnden page...and the move of the article. I'm too new of a member to make a move, but it was definitely needed! Akradecki 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

I haven't noticed that you do a lot of Civil War work here on Wikipedia. I was wondering what sparked your interest in this particular topic. Also of curiosity to me is your seeming biased against Braxton Bragg.

No "biased" on my part. I study the battles and campaigns and report the collective judgment of mainstream historians about the generals. When historians disagree, I report that, too. Hal Jespersen 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrote Some New Articles

Hi, I'm the guy who made some changes to the Bragg article a few months back and now I'm a wikipedia user. Anyway I recently had the time to write some new articles on Andrew Hickenlooper and John S, Bowen and thought I'd let you know. I also added to the W.H.L. Wallace and Benjamin Prentiss articles. --Gittes 20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Asking for brief assistance.

Rjensen is back at making destructive edits again. Could you visit Military leadership in the American Civil War, and if you agree, assist me in reverting the poorly formatted text and wholesale deletions he's performed? BusterD 11:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

XXIII Corps

Added XXIII Corps command history. Good 'ole Boatner. ---Gibblet

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Kirill Lokshin 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Reno

Thanks for the message. I used the style outlined at Wikipedia:Footnotes, but I'll edit the entry later to conform to your ACW style. I want to start another one on the North Carolina Expedition, because there's a category for it but no entry. The Maryland Campaign has an entry, so I was surprised not to find one on Burnside's expedition. I have to do more reading first, and I'll change those footnotes before I start to get up to speed. Thanks again - Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look at the footnotes now and see if I got it right. I saw in the McClellan entry that the websites were listed in the External LInks section but not in {{cite web}} format, but since I had to rely so heavily on online resources I went ahead and left them as I had formatted them initially. If you want me to change it let me know, or go ahead and do it if you want. I understand the format now (I think).

I grew up in one of the towns mentioned in the entry (the one I had to add) and my family is still there. Our Fort Reno was, obviously, a cavalry post for Indian fighters, but now it's a US Department of Agriculture research station - I spent a summer there during high school as a lab assistant. Frederic Remington spent about three months there and supposedly made many of his drawings during his stay. During World War II there was a German/Italian POW camp on part of the fort; the water tower from the camp was still standing when I was in high school in the early 1980s and I could see it from my house, but it has since collapsed. There are several dozen POWs are buried in the fort's cemetery, which is really neat to visit. The entire fort is being restored building by building with a grant from the National Park Service. And thus endeth your virtual visit to Fort Reno. :) Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the {{cite}} tags are clumsy too, and we've got a deal - it won't be in any more ACW articles, at least none that I write. That alone should cut my writing time by a factor of 10. Thanks - Baseball,Baby! ^{take a swing} 16:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ACW

Don't worry I will not step into your domain. Even though in your far superior guide that you written it states the same article sections as Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I break the stubs down into the sections so that others can fill it in (cause the blank space just beckons to be filled in) and it has helped moving stubs up into the Start and B class arena. As I stated I will not assist in improving Civil war articles since you claim ownership.--Oldwildbill 14:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Publicity vs trying to be helpful

Hello Hlj,

I did not want to re-edit because it seemed uncivilised to do so - instead I just wanted to clarify my position and understand yours.

I believe you when you say Custer was a publicity hound, but wonder whether it is better to put examples of recorded publicity seeking rather than offer what seems like an opinion. I do not know much about Custer at all but the two examples cited seem to indicate a willingess to please, or maybe to show off.

I wonder to what extent should the reader be allowed to form his own opinion about a person?

Regards,

Phil Bachmann

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Project Coordinators election

Hal I think you should nominate yourself to run for this. I think you skills (like your writing guide) would greatly enhance all the military projects article. I know I refer to yor page a lot since you let me know about it. Just my thoughts.--Oldwildbill 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Gershom Mott

I recently wrote a new article on Gershom Mott. I also prepared a piece on James B. Ricketts but I see it is now an Appelton encyclopedia article. How can I include my atricle with the Appleton information? Gittes

George B. McClellan

Nice work cleaning that up. Sorry to dump the changes on someone else, but I really can't claim to know either the subject area or the proper way to discuss a legacy in an NPOV manner. Desertsky85451 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Henry Warner Slocum

Well, you're the Civil War expert -- is he or isn't he the father of HWS, Jr.? Jr. attended Yale and there are a couple of references to him as Jr. How likely is it that he *isn't* the son of the other guy? I think it's appropriate in a encyl. to at least raise the possibility -- that's better than stating it as a *fact* -- one that then turns out to be wrong. For instance, I wrote two articles about old Czech tennis players, the Kozeluh brothers. But secondary sources, which was all I could find, had contradictory info: some said they were brothers, some said they weren't. So I wrote that the issue was unsettled. A couple days ago a Czech lady translated a long Czech article for me: they were indeed brothers.... Hayford Peirce 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thx re. the James Reasoner Civ War series article!

Thx re. the James Reasoner Civ War series article! It looks much better now. It takes a while to get down the nuances of Wikipedia!

Kudos and why's Antietam only a "B"?

Thanks for all your work on the Battle of Antietam article.

I'm curious why it's only a "B" page. Are there lingering POV issues or other concerns?

Certainly the detail is there - I don't see any significant holes. Heck, I think it's actually got way more than an encyclopedic piece ought! 192.104.54.21

Thank you. I would normally reply on your user talk page, but you did not log in. I really have no clue how these assessments are determined. For my own peace of mind, I have resolved to ignore them because I cannot allow myself to be beaten up by essentially anonymous reviewers. I simply write what I consider to be good articles and leave it at that. Hal Jespersen 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Hal, meant to get back and login ... the comment was mine Brian Downey 20:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

American Civil War task force

Given how active you are in this area, I thought you might be interested in the newly-created American Civil War task force of the Military history WikiProject; someone of your considerable experience would be extremely welcome, I think. Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To coordinate the "blizzard of renaming categories, date formats, and generating random assessments on Talk pages," perhaps? ;-)

Actually, the task force was created only because its creation was requested by a number of editors. Whether it'll take off or flounder, I'm not certain at this point; but anything that can prod people into improving content—particularly insofar as producing more FAs is concerned—seems a worthwhile idea to at least attempt. Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ACW Task Force

Hal Thought I would pass this on to you. Wikiproject Military History has started an ACW task force. Not many members have signed up but thought you might be interested.Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force.--Oldwildbill 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Hlj/CWbibliography

I've hyphenated them. the following appear to be incorrect:

ISBN 0-89029-080-7 : 6 (calculated checksum) 
ISBN 0-89919-760-6 : 4 
ISBN 0-89029-015-4 : 6

Rich Farmbrough 16:59 27 August 2006 (GMT).

According to Amazon they are

1. 0-89029-780-0
2. 0-89919-790-6
3. 0-89029-715-4

Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 17:29 27 August 2006 (GMT).

Review of new ACW-related articles

First of all, I thank you for the time and effort you have taken to create and maintain the very helpful and user-friendly pages on found on your “Hlj subpages.” Secondly, I thank you for your friendly comments today.

Is it your preference that Wikipedia contributors notify you on occasions when they have created/submitted new ACW-related articles?

Very Best Regards
--Black Flag 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Monocacy

I have taken care of it. The Junction listing now redirects to Battle of Monocacy. Always glad to be of help. I see your work and know you are staying active, although we haven't been in direct contact in a little while. Kepp up the good stuff, bud. Mark, 20:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

pettigrews ancestry

Time and time again I read of the Pettigrew name being of huegenot origin.This is inaccurate the name is Scottish, check out Sir thomas Pettigrew lord lyon of Scotland 1520, branches of the family were in France but were not of huegenot origin.The name is of Pictish origin, hence the many pett and pit place names in Scotland, Pettinain, Pettycur etc, it would appear our American cousins are trying to rewrite our origin, just as they do with Hollywood. ROY URQUHART PETTIGREW

O.O. Howard page

Just a quick something I noted from Gen. Howards page: the Matthew Brady photo of him is dated from 1860 on the page, which isn't possible as he's wearing Major General's stars - he would have only been a lieutenant. The picture couldn't have been taken until after Antietam when he was promoted.... perhaps circa 1863 or 4 would be more appropriate.

Well, "circa" can cover a lot of ground. The Library of Congress caption says "CREATED/PUBLISHED: [between 1855 and 1865]" so I guess the Wikipedia caption is splitting the difference. I will update it. Hal Jespersen 14:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Durham Station

If you have an argument that it is not true, please nominate it for deletion. I decided to withdraw the AfD because I didn't have sufficient evidence that it is a hoax. --Ineffable3000 01:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out Battle of Milliken's Bend

Hal,

Check out my edits to the Battle of Milliken's Bend.

I corrected some inaccuracies with regards to the Confederate troops that were engaged (they were under Smith, Taylor, and Walker, not Pemberton). I also edited the last sentence in which reports of Confederate atrocities were stated as fact.

Taylor gave explicit instructions not to kill captured African-American troops. No documentation I am aware of supports the contention that surrendering troops were murdered.

The battle was vicious, and African American casualties were heavy. But these casualties occured during the fighting.

Whoever made this original entry probably does not agree with my characterization. However, my statements are supported by references (which I included). The prior version had no references, and no facts to support the atrocities claim.

User:Mpleahy 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My footnotes

Thanks for the advice on automatic footnoting. I changed the title to notes, because that's what they really are...tidbits of additional information to round out a story.

I refrain from footnoting references to pages in books I have read, because I don't need the article to sound like I wrote it while I was reading the book. The article on McClellan looked just like that. As the numbers of the refs went down the page, so did the pages referred to in the book the guy was reading.

I wrote a book on this subject...if anything is going to get referenced it's my book. And a good deal of the fresh material is derived from Lowe's Reports which are not paged, but go by dates of the letters and communiques.

But I like the wiki-feature of the <ref/ref>. So thanks!--Magi Media 06:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

My notes

Thank you again!

A couple of my articles have received B ratings, and the idea of making a GA is appealing. This one on the Union Army was particularly mentioned, and I am proud to have gotten this close to such an honorable mention. I am weighing whether all the work is worth it, like you said, how important is it, really?

Now by in-line citation, do we mean classically footnoted to other publications, like the McClellan and Shiloh articles?

I really appreciate your help with this. BTW, how do you like the article, per se?

Mike ManningMagi Media 01:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

I really appreciate your comments on my article and the methods by which I could improve it. I particularly appreciate your comments about the inclusion of Confederate ballooning which is significant insomuch as the Confeds found it necessary in order to counter the effectiveness of Lowe's balloon reconnaissance. I could add it to my article with a sub of "Confederates' answer to UABC." All the larger publication mention it as does my own. It rounds out a great Civil War tale which otherwise goes ignored.

I have mentioned them in other articles: History of Military Ballooning and Aerial warfare/American Civil War/Silk Dress Balloons. I pride myself as a Lowe afficionado what with his balloons and the Mount Lowe Railway which was in my home tome. See my website [[3]].

I should like to send you a copy of my publication Intrepid about Lowe and the Balloon Corps. I will get together with you on e-mail. If I hadn't mentioned it before: Thanks! Mike Manning--Magi Media 02:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Orders of battle

I just added the reference for the Shiloh OBs. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Wild Wolf 01:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming the Civil War

You have recently edited Naming the American Civil War. I am stepping back from the article for a day or so to avoid an edit war. My request is that you consider stepping in to apply some peer pressure in the interest of civility, NPOV, assuming good faith, etc. It's up to you. -- Alarob 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your copyedit and citation fix on P. G. T. Beauregard. I'm still just now learning how to do citations/footnotes/etc properly. Pfly 17:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mucking alert on William Tecumseh Sherman

Usual suspects. BusterD 22:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think he's cyclic, because he's been very helpful and reliable lately. Frankly I was playing a bit dramatic but I do agree with some of the unlinkings. Very glad Eb.hoop jumped in when he did. I sent messages out to 4 folks I knew and 2 I only knew from reputation. Jim arrived first but held fire when hoop jumped in. Now that there's a crowd and 5RR if he pushes it, he'll calm down. Too bad; I had just suggested this am that he consider joining the Military historiography task force (if one is raised), and he jumped in quickly.

What really surprised me this eve is how I didn't let him bait me, frantically sent out dispatches for other eyes, and applied my 3 reverts as methodically and deliberately as I could while I waited for the cavalry. As luck would have it, hoop noticed my message to him and got right in. If I haven't thanked you lately for my more mature understanding (of which you are a very large contributor) of this workspace, I'm thanking you now. I'm shepherding a newbie or two myself these days and I can't believe how lucky I was you were one of my first wikifriends. Best. BusterD 00:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Gen. John McCausland

Hi, I thought it might be a good idea to include McCausland's ties to West Virginia, he moved there when he was 13 and lived there all his life, except for the few years when he was on the run after the war. He returned to Mason county to his farm and remained there til his death. Otherwise people reading the article will think he was just a general who operated in WV and had no personal connection. Thanks. Bob

[Can't reply directly to anonymous user.] If you have the sources for this info, go ahead and add it. Hal Jespersen 16:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alfred Pleasonton

Hi, I found this website which is identically to the page. It seems they copied wikipedia (date is 23 July 2005), but there's no note on their website. Can you check? Thanks Cruccone 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for explaining how to do a . I had wondered about that! -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maps

Your maps are very nice and easy to read. I used them for school several times and I've gotten A's since.

Please consider looking at my editor review

You were one of the first users to help me on WP, and now that I'm 2500 edits old, I'd be very proud if you were to participate in my ER. Even if you'd rather not participate, thanks. BusterD 02:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman military - peer review

Hi, this article is currently pending peer review and I see that you have an interest in military history and have peer-reviewed articles before - if you have time I would greatly appreciate any advice or comments you can give within the peer review structure for improving this article. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 16:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

blanking vandal

I reported this problem to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ Somebody has been using a series of IP addresses to systematically blank user pages--he hit mine User talk:Rjensen a number of times as well as User talk:Hlj User talk:Kablammo and User talk:Luna Santin

What the targets all have in common is we strongly protested Stevewk who tried repeatedly to remove all the information about the Civil War from the Abraham Lincoln article. Stevewk was given a 3R suspension but may be using sockpuppets to hit editors. Thus he may be using 70.110.174.121 151.197.233.65 70.110.155.238 70.110.174.121 etc. Rjensen 23:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

shell/projectile/shot/bolt

Sorry, actually it was technically -- or otherwise -- a "shell". See "The Army of Tennessee", Stanley F. Horn, p332 and footnotes. "[P]assed through his body ... and exploded only when it struck a tree"

I will have to respond here since you did not provide an address to a talk page.

However: 1) Doesn't "projectile" include all the above and is, therefore, non-controversial?

It is actually useful to be precise, rather than using a more generic term. For instance, if someone asked me how I was traveling for Thanksgiving and I said "I am taking a vehicle," that is technically correct, but tells you little about my mode of transportation. Cars, buses, boats, and airplanes are all vehicles.

2) This Wikipedia business of "[citation needed]" when both sides are using third -- or further -- hand citations doesn't get us closer to the facts.

My practice is that when someone modifies an article I have researched and provides information that I cannot verify, I request a citation. This allows us to increase the accuracy of the articles in a way that is verifiable. I do not know what you mean by thirdhand citations. We generally favor "secondary sources" and provide citations to them to allow the readers to judge the accuracy for themselves. Hal Jespersen 02:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

United States Army Signal Corps

Can I get you as a third opinion on the article United States Army Signal Corps. Should the mission statement be in italics or regular font? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Military rank

Whats the rule for military rank capitalization? Is its always capitalized as a person's title, then uncapitalized when used elsewhere? Such as: "He worked with Captain John Doe, and several lieutenants" --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You should promote your guide to an MoS suggestion. Its well thought out, the existing one doesn't have enough in it. Where in the US are you, did you get hit by the big storm this week? Its in NJ now, wind advisory, its 65 degrees as the warm air is pushed ahead of the storm at 60 miles per hour. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Little Sorrel

(Lengthy discussion moved to Talk:List of famous horses of the American Civil War so others can read.) Hal Jespersen 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles (alphabetical) take a peek at it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Little Sorrel

I am not going to argue with your re-edit.

If you want to insist that Little Sorrel and Old Sorrel are the same, then it is nothing more than a waste of time to continue to re-edit it any further.

As you do more research on the subject then just reading Robertson's book (and it is a fine one), maybe you will run across both horses in the many othre volumes on Jackson that exist.

I want to thank you so much for caring about the reputation of Stonewall Jackson.

Have a nice day.

carton253

Battle of Lovejoy station

Is there any evidence to suggest where the lovejoy station was located on today's map?

If you would sign your edit, I might be able to communicate with you. Hal Jespersen 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg

Some people have been seriously vandalizing the Battle of Gettysburg. Since I do not know how to revert to the old version, could you do it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.161.40.64 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Seems OK to me at the moment. I do watch it when I'm online. Hal Jespersen 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Carolinas Campaign

His strength was recorded in mid-March at 9,513 and only 15,188 by mid-April.

Question: How could Johnson's army gain 5,000 men in a month? How is it "only" when the second number is more than the first? Hbdragon88 00:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to post a talk pgae discussion, but the message box said that you were actively involved in mantaining the article, so I just wanted to query you about that sentence, which stuck out in my mind as odd and nonsensical. Hbdragon88 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Seven Pines

Hi! I am doing a project about the Civil War Battle of Seven Pines. I have discover very little about this topic and was wondering if you may have any useful information besides the ones you put on the site and to be frank, I think this is the best site for research. I appreciate you taking your time to read this message and I hope you may have the heart to help me.

Sincerely, ARTHUR

If you had left a regular Wikipedia signature, I could have replied on your talk page. There is a lot of additional information about the battle in the references cited in the article. I think the book by Stephen Sears is particularly good. Hal Jespersen 17:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A note about random images as we discussed

See this talk. It seems to describe what you described to me... BusterD 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Request from User:Vaoverland

Hi, Hal! I have been busy working on Wikipedia: WikiProject Virginia and several other projects with User: No1lakersfan most of this past year, partially in preparation and supprt of the Jamestown 2007 event. He is now a high school senior hoping to gain admittance to one of Virginia's public universities for the Fall 2007 semester. Following advice, he has done maintenance and reference adding work, as well spending time on articles. He is a good collaborator and I believe he would enhance our efforts with WP as an administrator and use the additional tools and powers wisely. Since you know me from our past communications, I wanted to request that you consider entering a vote, hopefully in support, if you agree with my judgment and recommendation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/No1lakersfan 2.

• Please feel free to communicate with me on my Talk page at User talk: Vaoverland if you have any questions or reservations. Best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks, Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 23:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

rfa nomination

hal, that's fine. Mark Vaoverland 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Casualties"

I agree with you edit at Battle of Antietam - I found the phrase 'lost casualties' both redundant and confusing. I found the phrase 'lost' to be equally applicable, because casualties are unable to continue fighting, but your change works also.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Emory Upton

Your article on Emory Upton makes no mention of his part in the June 1, 1864 "first" assault at Cold Harbor by Russell's division of which Upton's was the lead brigade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.17.1 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Thomas Green

Hello,

I am by no means an expert on the Civil War, but as regards Green's Birth Date & Place of Birth, should we not defer to his gravestone as the authority?

Regards,

Michael David 23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I never thought of a gravestone having a typo. Good point. Given your expertise in the area of the Civil War, let's leave the Article as you edited it.

Have a happy & healthy New Year,

Michael David 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)