User talk:IcarusPhoenix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of Generals[edit]

I understand your concern but I think I can explain this satisfactorily. Please understand that I am not wiping the work out altogether and will be putting it back in a separate article promptly. I am creating a separate list of brevet union generals. I have moved your work to a word processing document and will restore it to the separate Wikipedia together as soon as I can get it together in whole or in reasonable part. The only reason I saved the ones with pictures on the current list is that I could not (do not know how to) preserve them for the new list if I delete them. I do know how to move the pictures because I have experimented with that. So I will restore the entire list of 1,367 brevet union generals with the links you made - and then move the pictures - as soon as I can get it together. I think it will only take a few days as I have the entire list in a document now. In fact, the only reason I started the deletions and did not just move them is because someone came through last night and made some changes (mostly good ones) to reduce the size of the article. I was concerned about further edits that might take away some substance unless I reduced the size a little. In fact, maybe I can wait on further deletions until I get the separate list together. The size of the article is not going to go over the 400 kb suggested absolute limit. I am new to this so I am not sure of all the protocols yet. I saw this list had not been worked on in awhile and thought I could add to it and finish it. If I had realized you were actively working on it, I would have contacted you. I hope this will take care of your concern.Donner60 (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to second message: I have restored the A-B brevet generals that were deleted. That was the best way I could show they still existed. Also, you can start with them with your prior work now all restored (I hope).

You can see that since this is not indented that I have not quite figured out all of the formatting. In fact, the only way I can answer your question about editing is that I click on the edit tab and go to work on what comes up. I used what was in the article already as a template and added to it. Then it was cleaned up a little by someone else.

Ezra Warner says that only the 425 officers that are on the 1905 (1908) War Department list were officially appointed and confirmed (and a few of them were cancelled, besides) and those are the only ones that should be counted. Militia officers should not be counted because they were not brought into the Confederate Army (PACS) itself. Officers who exercised command but were not formally promoted should not be counted, according to Warner. He only lists the 10 officers assigned to duty by Edmund Kirby Smith in an appendix. The list in the article actually only contains a few names in addition to the 425: some but not all of the E. K. Smith appointments and a few militia officers who saw some active duty and appear to have been somewhat prominent besides. I think I would leave it at 425 plus the 10 Smith officers plus Semmes because of his notoriety and just a few militia officers that might have taken part in some actual operations. I think they can be limited to a few names. Unlike the Union brevet officers, there is not a good category in which to put these extra officers. Also, perhaps only about 20 really need to be listed. On the other hand, I suppose if a category could be devised, all 137 could be added there.

As you suggest, a similar handling of brevet Union officers might be possible if the number were limited to about 50 of those who were not later promoted to full rank. These would be the ones that were promoted before February or March 1865 or were brevetted posthumously at that time for real accomplishments, not just meritorious service. Also, there may be a few of the later brevets who were prominent people later (like Charles Francis Adams, Jr). If there were not too many, they could be included. I tend to think it is better just to say they all should be recognized in a separate list and perhaps notes shown only for the most prominent, including those who were recognized for quite heroic or extraordinary actions. I could go either way if the size of a Union general list or total list could be kept down.

This leads to the length of the article. If it were turned back into mostly a list with few notes, all the extra officers could be added. Still, that would be just over 1,000 regular generals, the 137 extra Confederates, and the 1,367 Union brevet generals. I think the brevet generals who were not promoted to full generals should be in a separate list. That may not shorten the article enough to satisfy the administrators, I suppose. I certainly would have no problem with also separating the lists of Union and Confederate generals. It should be no big deal with a cross reference to look at two lists (three if the brevets are in a separate list). Whether this would allow some notes along the lines I have put into some entries without making these lists too long as well is hard to say. Certainly the introduction could be shortened for each since some of the current introduction pertains only to one or the other army.

My introduction has become a little long and perhaps could be separated out. I would like to see the information preserved somewhere because I do not think there is an article which encompasses it. I tried to keep it pertinent to the generals and to avoid much that related mostly to the war in general.

I had thought about the possibility of finishing it the way I had intended and presenting it to the military committee for their comments on cleaning it up or revising it or splitting it. An incomplete article and list existed and I thought it might be best to have information available and edit it later. A discussion without some visual representation of what was being discussed might get a little abstract.

With 1,000 or more generals to be listed, and pictures available as well, even a few lines of notes for each general certainly makes it long. Again, splitting the article might help.

With the tag now being applied to the article, I think that some consensus may be needed, as you suggest. I propose to fill in the missing Confederate ranks for the last few letters of the alphabet and not do anything else that would lengthen the article or add to the kilobytes without some direction or consensus as to what would be acceptable.

Further reply: I have shortened the introduction considerably. I suppose it could be reduced to a few sentences but it would not explain much. Maybe another look would show a little more editing might work. Of course, I still have the material I took out. I have taken out the extra column identifying the service for Union generals entirely, which shortens the article. I have deleted some of my notes, although a lot could be added to notes to make them more useful as a single reference. I guess maybe a list is only supposed to be a list and link to more extensive articles. Maybe a question? It's down to 196 kb, which I think is about a 30% reduction. I will try to clarify the options more systematically than my stream of consciousness reply above a little later today. Then I might be done with this article and stick to minor or brief articles or edits. Even with all the activity, I hope you will find the bottom line now is that the current article is an improvement over the previous version - and not really significantly longer than that version or than it needs to be to capture the basic material and a very few details. I think all of your material in the lists is back. Only a little general information in the original introduction is gone but I assume you can put it back if you think any of it is valuable. I have a very early version saved but I am not sure it is the absolute original, if you need it. All the highest ranks for all the full rank generals should now be in the list. Wow, it looks like I inadvertently did not "sign" the other reply. Sorry. Donner60 (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to third message: I will put a similar table back in. I will amend the new text just a little for clarity, but you can, of course, change it further if you think it would improve it or help get the flag removed. I also will cut some of the remaining notes that I put in since a few of them are still long and others are somewhat trivial. I did not put most of these in due to the importance of the officers. When I realized I should mainly put in the ranks first and notes later, I only put in further notes if they had to do with the appointment or could be done briefly. After I make these further revisions, I will get back to you on my ideas on what might or might not be included in these lists and how many lists there might be, again, hopefully in a more systematic way than the thoughts I put down above.

You probably know that one can see prior versions if one goes far enough back in the revision history. Of course, it is the version that is shown on the internet, not the version in code, but for most purposes that should be good enough. For the record, here is the introduction just before I made my first change to the article in case you wish to use any of it. As I make my changes presently, I may restore a few of the sentences and let you decide whether to leave them or take them out.

Revision as of 06:00, 24 July 2010

The American Civil War was a civil war in the United States of America between 1861–1865. Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). The Confederates, led by Jefferson Davis fought against the Union, which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a US military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a volunteer army from each state, leading to declarations of secession by four more Southern slave states. Both sides raised armies as the Union assumed control of the border states early in the war and established a naval blockade. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal[1], and dissuaded the British from intervening.[2]

The American Civil War was the deadliest war in American history, resulting in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilian casualties.

A general officer is an officer of high military rank and in the uniformed services of the United States, general officers are commissioned officers above the field officer ranks, the highest of which is colonel in the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force and captain, in the Navy, Coast Guard, Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps (NOAACC). During the Civil War both the Union and the Confederates required leadership in order to develop strategies and command troops through the various battles. A large number of Generals were promoted on both sides to facilitate the defeat of their rival.

In 1860, at the outbreak of the Civil War, there were only a select number of general officers serving in the United States Army. The following is a list of those officers who had been promoted to the rank of general prior to April 1, 1861 either by substantive rank or rank or brevet. Those officers with a brevet rank also held a lower substantive rank of an earlier date. The highest rank the officer received before the aforementioned date is shown, substantive or brevet. The allegiance of the officer during the Civil War is also shown.

Name[3] Rank Date of Appointment Allegiance Winfield Scott Brevet Lieutenant General 29 March 1847 U.S.A. David E. Twiggs Brevet Major General 23 September 1846 C.S.A. John E. Wool Brevet Major General 23 February 1847 U.S.A. George Gibson Brevet Major General 30 May 1847 U.S.A. William S. Harney Brigadier General 14 June 1858 U.S.A. Edwin V. Sumner Brigadier General 16 March 1861 U.S.A. Joseph E. Johnston Brigadier General 28 June 1860 C.S.A. Sylvester Churchill Brevet Brigadier General 23 February 1847 U.S.A. Joseph G. Totten Brevet Brigadier General 29 March 1847 U.S.A. John Garland Brevet Brigadier General 20 August 1847 U.S.A. Timothy P. Andrews Brevet Brigadier General 13 September 1847 U.S.A. Thomas Lawson Brevet Brigadier General 30 May 1848 U.S.A. Albert S. Johnston Brevet Brigadier General 18 November 1857 C.S.A.

Following the attack on Fort Sumter the U.S. Army re-instituted the promotion of volunteer officers. On May 16, 1861 three appointments were made to Major General of U.S. Volunteers. These officers (in order they were appointed) were John A. Dix, Benjamin F. Butler and Nathaniel P. Banks.[4] These three officers thus outranked all other volunteer officers for the duration of the war. The following day 34 appointments were made to Brigadier General of U.S. Volunteers.[5] The first three names to appear on the appointment list were Samuel P. Heintzelman, David Hunter and Erasmus D. Keyes (Ulysses S. Grant's name appeared 18th on the list). By 1865 there were over 1,000 generals by substantive or brevet rank in the Regular Army, Volunteer Army or state militias.

References

  • Eicher, John H., and Eicher, David J., Civil War High Commands, Stanford University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8047-3641-3.

Citations

  1. ^ Frank J. Williams, "Doing Less and Doing More: The President and the Proclamation—Legally, Militarily and Politically," in Harold Holzer, ed. The Emancipation Proclamation (2006) pp 74–5.
  2. ^ Howard Jones, Abraham Lincoln and a New Birth of Freedom: The Union and Slavery in the Diplomacy of the Civil War (1999) p. 154
  3. ^ Eicher p.39
  4. ^ Eicher p.776
  5. ^ Eicher p.776
  6. ^ Eicher p.592
  7. ^ Eicher p.446

Donner60 (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideas about number of lists, what to include; questions that need to be answered in order to complete lists, remove flag.

Maybe enough has been done to remove the "too long" flag already, although by adding back some information in the introduction, I may be approaching the edge of acceptability again. If I remember correctly, someone has to appeal to have the flag removed. I am reasonably sure no one (including, of course, the flagger) will come back and remove it even if the article has been changed.

I think the main questions, which I suppose may be related to some extent, in deciding how many lists there should be, who and what should be included, and what would make the article(s)/list(s) of acceptable lists are:

When is the list/article too long? I know there are guidelines but would they apply to the introduction, to the list, to the material in the list (especially notes)? It seems to me that if a list is a certain number of items long, it can only be shortened so much? It could also be divided further by letters of the alphabet but that does not seem preferable unless the utility of the list is increased considerably.

Is the length measured by the absolute length or the number of kilobytes and is it influenced by the length of the introduction or the subject matter (repeating to some extent the previous considerations.

What should the format be? I notice that the number of kilobytes is greatly increased by using a table format. On the other hand, unless the list contains only one or two items for each entry, that would seem to be the better way to prepare the article.

What other information should be included? The thumbnail images certainly increase the size of the article considerably in terms of kilobytes. Would it be better to use the space/kilobytes for other information and leave the pictures to the main articles on each individual.

In addition to name and rank, I think some note that discloses the individual was not a full rank general should be included. Many other items could be noted: West Point or other military school graduate; Indian Wars, War of 1812 or Mexican War service; whether on active duty prior to the war and at what rank; units commanded, battles participated in, killed in action, wounded, relationships to other generals, politicians or notables, pre-war and post-war political offices or notable careers, date of death, and other items. I think the most important for the list, not necessarily overall, is an entry about why the individual is not considered a full rank general. Next would probably be killed in action.

Related to the size and composition of the article, how many footnotes are needed? Does every note need at least one footnote? I have seen some challenges to the number of citations in articles that had a fair number of citations and where the author(s) seem to have intended a paragraph or two to be covered by the same footnote, which in context did not appear illogical. I took some of the footnotes out for notes of one or two non-controversial phrases. Maybe they need to be put back.

Who should be on the list? This depends in part on how many lists there might be. Leaving out the options where a list is split by letters of the alphabet into more than one part, I think there could be four lists. I would currently favor two, but could go with a different number.

If there is only one list, it will be considered too long in the current format if it goes much beyond the 564 or 583 Union generals who clearly belong and the 401 or 425 Confederate generals who clearly belong on the list. Depending on what it includes and how much is allowed, even this might have to be split into two lists, and I could agree with that, although I would like to see only one for the full generals if possible.

If the list is split into Union and Confederate lists, can all the other names of those who might be included, especially brevet generals and militia officers, really be included without making one of these two lists - especially the Union general list - too long? I think it would be so my second list right now would be a Union brevet general list - including officers not advanced to full rank general. After all, there are more of them than the full rank Union and Confederate generals combined.

The fourth list could include the “might have beens” and militia generals unless so few of them are included that they do not make the main lists too long. I would not oppose a list of some sort for these officers but I would not make it a high priority.

So there are some choices to be made and someone needs to decide. As long as the list is flagged, I suppose it cannot be just you and me.

I quickly went through the revision history and saw that creating tables rather than just a list, putting in a lot of placeholders (now removed) and putting in the images are the actions that really brought the size of the list up. It was 220 kb when you put in your additions. My introduction and the tables I introduced for it added much more in terms of kilobytes and length than the additions to the notes and references, much less the ranks which had to be included. With additions and subtractions, the article went up to as much as 296 kb but was down to about 269 kb when it was flagged. I reduced it to 187kb by this afternoon but when I added back the table of pre-war officers in two parts and an accompanying short paragraph, and added some more discussion of the number of generals who are recognized by various historians and should be identified, I brought it back to 203 kb.

Still, the total number of kb is lower than when I started, the introduction is much more informative but has been brought under size control (in my opinion) even with the tables added back, and there is much more information in the body of the list because I added all the Confederate generals’ ranks and still have added some notes.

I think the list is not too long or too many kb because the introduction has been cut back. It may be approaching a maximum length but I think it is still reasonable and has information about the generals as a group that is useful and pertinent. Eliminating the notes and associated footnotes might save a few kb, but I already trimmed the notes some and eliminating them altogether for only sixteen entries would probably take away more info than it would be worth.

I do intend to tweak the introduction a little, but other than changing a few words for clarity or to add a few references, I do not want to change it much up or down in terms of size. Under the guidelines, of course, you can edit it if you think you can improve it or make it more acceptable.

I think a few other items need to be added. Any “might have beens” (cancelled appointments, etc.) that are still included should have notes that explain that in a phrase or sentence. The real rank of brevet generals who were not actual generals or who were later promoted or promoted to a lower grade of general should be noted as long as brevets (only) are included in this list. Maybe a few footnotes need to be added. I doubt that these changes would make it much longer than it was when I started but I suppose I could be underestimating the size of these possible additions. I will leave it at that unless I finish the Union brevet general list that I had already started.

Sorry about going on a little long again and perhaps throwing out more questions than ideas, although I think I stated my main preferences as I went along. Donner60 (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your comment about the positions in the main list being put in the notes and only having the ranks in the other column and also think that the introductory table should remain as organized because it has a little different purpose and is short. It is consistent with what I was doing and would propose to do with brevet generals, real rank in the rank column, brevet rank in the notes. Donner60 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply concerning extra generals: I am sure it is simple to put these replies in the cascading format that most of them seem to be in as soon as I take the time to find the right way to do it. Until then, I guess this format is easy enough to follow and will do.

As I said before, if we (Wikipedia) wish to have a list with any kind of details but also to keep the number of kb in the article down, there is no question that the Union and Confederate lists need to be separate. The introduction may need to be revised some for each list, but that should be easy enough to accomplish. Some overlap or cross referencing will be needed but that should not work out badly.

I agree that if the brevet generals are to stay in the same list, which they should for the time being because there is no separate list, that a separate column for the brevet rank as you suggest would be a good way to do it. After all, that is the way I did it with the small table in the introduction. I still think that a separate list for them would be appropriate and I do have one that I could put up when it is put in proper format. I have no objection to adding a few dozen others in each group if they can be adequately noted and distinguished from the group the Eichers called "substantive" generals.

I have wondered whether the links added much in the way of kb to the article. If they add anything significant, I think that leaving them out for "brevet" in the list of ranks would be fine. The word is already linked several times in the introduction.

I think I am close to finished with my work on revising the introduction. I noticed the Eichers use of grade and rank and tried to accommodate that. I think they are not entirely correct but in the interest of full detail, their position on this perhaps should be noted, maybe in a footnote. I tried originally not to have any substantive footnotes, but there are a few details that seem to me to need inclusion but which also seem to unduly interrupt the flow. Clarifying that and adding a few other clarifications and references should finish it. I do not want to build it back up to the size it was when it was flagged. On the other hand, I think that this is a list that needs some introduction, especially now that I have focused a good part of it on who should be included.

If you wish to work on the article tonight, I will stay off it for several hours at least, maybe even longer. Otherwise, we will end up having to reconcile an edit conflict which is not the most productive use of time, especially when all the changes are likely to be included in the final article(s). Donner60 (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to second message on August 13-14. Split sounds good. I did not look at the current article because I think the additional number will not make the Confederate article/list unduly long once it is split and brief notes should be enough to point out any special circumstances about their status. I can revise the introduction for each list after you split the two lists into two articles. I think that most of the introduction likely will stay with the Union list and the remainder, plus a little overlap, will go to the Confederate list. I probably will not look at it again until Sunday. I have been working on adding to a stub article on the battle of Jenkins' Ferry, simply because I noticed 2 generals had been mortally wounded there and I looked at the article. It will take me a little while to finish that as best I can and I would like to go ahead and do that since I think I am reasonably far along. I am not sure that I will have much time to work on the generals' lists tomorrow but should get back to them within a day or two. Donner60 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply on new information, split: I have just gotten back on the site today. I think the new format under the "A"s is fine. It seems to give the information without taking up too much room. Putting a column back may use up some kilobytes, but splitting the Union and Confederates should make up for that and the extra clarity is worth it. I am sure I noted somewhere along the line that I had taken the column out of the Confederate list but left a column showing service in the Union list for possible different use. Then after the article was tagged, I took it out. Too bad, but perhaps you were able to restore the entire column more quickly than I knew how to remove it. I also find it preferable to have the Confederate "might have beens" in a separate list on the bottom. Perhaps one of us will see a few others that should be moved to that column.

My only concern with the format involves the image column. The image column has become wider again. If you can narrow it to the size of the thumbnails, it would look better and give a little more space for the rest of the material. I tried to narrow that column some days ago, when it still had a couple of images that were larger than thumbnails, without success. I also notice that some image cells simply have the name of the general and jpg. Are these placeholders or did some of the images not carry over?

I would have to get up to speed on how to split the article without losing the formatting. If you know how to do it quickly without danger of messing it up, perhaps you can do so and just leave the entire introduction on both articles. I can then go back in within a day or so and revise them to fit each list. Off the top of my head, I think the Union introduction would keep most of the material and the Confederate introduction would have the rest plus a little more from the original introduction to be complete. Then a cross reference to the Union introduction should suffice. I think there should not be any great problem in having identical introductions until I can revise them. If you are not experienced in splitting articles, however, I can review the information on it and go ahead with it.

Good work on this. Maybe we can get something that is finished, or looks close to finished, as soon as this week. Donner60 (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to further message on split: Thanks. I hope to get my revised article on Jenkins' Ferry finished tonight and get back to it tomorrow. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Update, My Computer Problems Now I am having problems with my computer. I had to restore the operating system a couple of times earlier in the year but it stabilized the last time I restored it. Now it has crashed again. I have it partially restored but there is still a problem because a few programs will not work again. I suppose running a six-year old computer on Windows XP is stretching my luck. I intended to replace it but since it was running well, I put it off. Now may be the time to replace it. Either way, I will be spending some time bringing the system and programs back entirely or buying a new one. It will probably be at least a day or two until I can back to this. Worst of all, perhaps, I know I lost a few days work with my backup drive not connected for a few days.Donner60 (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I heartily approve the work you're doing splitting List of American Civil War generals[edit]

Consider my comment an endorsement of your actions, for consensus purposes. BusterD (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Split of List; Intended Review of Introductory Article[edit]

Thanks for splitting the article. I see the introductory article is down to some 32,000 kilobytes which should be acceptable to the length of article bot. Even with a few changes to account for two lists or to improve clarity or accuracy, I think I would not add very much to the length. I put the following on the discussion page of the article. Intended Review and Possible Revision to Introductory Article Due to Division Into Two Lists I will review this article as soon as possible to see if changes should be made in order to more closely describe the list of generals as two separate lists. I also think that a few minor changes in the description of the lists or of the generals as a group may be needed. I also have been working intermittently on a separate list of brevet generals which I will add when I insert all of the details. I have all of the names and ranks in a document but I intend to add dates and a few other details so that a reasonably complete article is submitted rather than one which needs many details still to be added.Donner60 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC) Donner60 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Introductory Article[edit]

Thanks. My thoughts are along the same lines. We might want to look at whether the brevet list will be enough for all brevets (after I finally get back to it and finish it). Another possible alternative to mixing those brevet generals retained in the main list might be to put those names in a separate section at the bottom of the page like the separate section of might have beens that is now in at least the Confederate list. You might want to look at whether some of those in the Union list ought to be separated into a separate might have been section as well. I think there are still some in the Confederate list that could be moved down. These are the approximately 25 that Eicher and Eicher say that they do not recognize as meeting the appointment, confirmation, acceptance criteria - and that Warner also shows do not meet the criteria, but apparently included in his books because Wright had included them in his lists. In reality, there seems to be little difference between some of them and some of the might have beens that are not on his list.

I think the introductory article should not require much work but I may want to spend a little time on research of a few points. I also installed a program conflicting with Windows 7 on my desktop and laptop so I need to take some time to reinstall programs and settings on both since I have not fully restored the laptop in particular. I thought I had avoided such problems after the upgrade but all older programs are not only not compatible but can cause problems - like disabling a driver for a CD/DVD player/drive. That has slowed me down for a few days but I should have everything back in order by tomorrow night.Donner60 (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Generals, New Messages[edit]

I agree with your concern about the size of the article. I am thinking about taking out references in the Confederate generals list. I have put references in the Union generals list only when I have changed entries by other editors. We now have a few other people putting in random edits but they are not using the specific method that you used and we cooperated on with the letter "A". My thought - running a little contrary to concern about the length of the article - is that if I simply put in the actual substantive grade and the brevet rank date separately, the person who put the new name (or perhaps entry) into the list would question my change as unsourced or not appropriate. Except for a very few corrections or minor additions, I had not added anything to the Union list until these other edits started appearing. I did not use the new format for the changes in names other than those that start with A since I thought my change would be temporary until you made the changes and additions in line with those for the letter A. I probably should have dropped you a note on that. I have tried to keep the notes relatively short in the Confederate list, but have added some additional information. The list is shorter, of course, so the concern about length may not be as great if a few extra phrases are added for some generals. So I do not disagree with your plan for the Union generals list and really did not intend to change the method. However, I would prefer not to see others add inaccurate or at least incomplete information while you are working on it. I probably would not have even done anything with it had these other edits not started appearing.

I realized after I had added the regiments for the B names - which I decided to work on because I thought it would be a quick edit and I was already working on some changes prompted by the other editor additions - that we had not done that for the letter A. At that point, I thought it was not worth going back over because it could be changed later. In my view, it is easier to subtract something that appears superfluous than it is to add something that might be useful but has not been included. (I know some would disagree with this as a sort of trial and error approach but as long as the information is accurate, I do not see any great problem with it.)

I have a list of brevet generals who were not promoted to substantive rank in process but I am not giving it very high priority so it may not appear for awhile, if at all. Someone, or group, will need to decide if the brevet generals who were never promoted to substantive general should be excluded from the existing list if that list becomes a reality. It would cut the length and perhaps allow a few other additions for prominent generals. That is some time off. Also, in the Confederate list, I might consider whether the extra "generals" at the end can be put somewhere else or excluded. At this time, it seems there are not even main articles, not even stubs, for many of these people. I agree that they are notable, however, since most were colonels and many were acting brigade commanders at some time during the war.

I am glad to hear you are working on the list. It is the type of thing that is easy to get away from because of its length, if for no other reason. I am also working on another list on which we have had some complications so my enthusiasm for lists is definitely waning. I will not work on the Union generals list further unless I see someone put in an incomplete or erroneous entry. Otherwise, I will assume you will work on it as you have time unless for some reason you decide to give up on it entirely and let me know it is up to me or others to finish it. Donner60 (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you got a rude response. That is uncalled for in any event, but especially when there has not been any communication back and forth. I think you and I have worked well together on these lists. Our approaches were similar, even if not identical, and perhaps that helped. Nonetheless, we seem to be able to come to a "consensus" at least between ourselves, as to how to approach these lists. I think we were both influenced by the "too long" messages and that has kept us on track. By the way, I expanded the biography of Henry Livermore Abbott several months ago. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I meant to also add that I agree with the addition of Hoffman, especially since he eventually did get the promotion. Donner60 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Reno[edit]

Rather than get into an editing war, I think we need to find a copy of the commission itself (which so far I'm finding surprisingly difficult, though I shall keep trying); it would be nice if either Warner or the Eichers gave a specific source. That being said, I think we can pretty much guarantee that his nomination at least (not to mention his being informed of that nomination) happened during his lifetime... otherwise we probably wouldn't have a photo of him wearing the uniform of a Major General, since I can't seem to find a record of a brevet for that rank, either (though I don't rule out the possibility that one exists).
IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

War? Why would that subject come up in conjunction with the events of 1861-65? :-) I was too hasty in my reading of the big table in Eicher because it does show an appointment date of August 20 and the "(posthumously)" notation is actually underneath the date of rank. So you are correct, Reno was an appointed major general at the beginning of the Maryland Campaign, although he had not been formally nominated to the Senate nor confirmed until after his death. Sorry for the confusion. I have corrected the article. However, note that the Eichers do provide citations, although they do it in a rather obscure way because of the volume of footnotes that would be required. Unfortunately, some of the documents they reference are not immediately available to me to cross check, so there is some degree of trust involved in citing a secondary source. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranks[edit]

this is not correct anyway Major general (United States) it should read Major General (United States) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.108.102 (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And[edit]

It dosen't matter it is suppoosed to be like that. You don't see anything in the real world military being put Major general it is always Major General —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.108.102 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

constructive criticism[edit]

it's not constructive criticism when you tell someone that they don't know the english language now bugger off

Brevet Union General List[edit]

I looked back at the brevet Union general list that I started last fall. Since it is quite far along, in fact further than I had remembered after letting it go since September (all the names are on the list as are the ranks and dates of the brevet awards and a few other details), I will put up the page within the next day. This should save you some time and work, although you may want to work on links and some of the other details. There would seem to be little reason for you to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, when I have the list completed. I had not posted it because I was adding additional details but as with the lists that are on line, those can be added over time. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the page. You may want to withdraw the hero award since the page has more information that you contemplated. On the other hand, it has all the information you said you wanted to include. I probably should have capitalized brevet or not capitalized general in the title. It is not always easy to keep in mind the capitalization guidelines for title or section headings since lower case is used most of the time but not always. I think that the title line is the one line an editor cannot change without getting permission so perhaps it should just stay that way.

I think I have links to all the existing articles for officers whose names start with "A". Otherwise, I do not have such links. I know that red links are frowned upon but I think that if an editor contemplates writing an article on the red linked subject, it is probably ok. If not, someone else may not use the exact name or title and the link will not automatically convert. You can see that I used the last names first. That is how the original list of generals was prepared and this list goes back to the time period when the lists were still in that order. I have included no column for thumbnail pictures. The number of kilobytes would be tremendous if pictures were included. I have probably put the number substantially higher than in would be by using the columns but I think it allows the listing of a little more information that is easier to follow. I have put the list of substantive generals after the list of brevet generals of lower substantive grade in order to list the grade and dates of higher brevet awards. One thing I believe I had not yet done was to compare this list with the list of brevet generals only to be sure there is no overlap. I will do that as soon as I can. I will also add confirmation dates as soon as I can. I can do it from the Eicher book. As I recall from when I started this list, the hardest part of that is keeping an eye on the proper line. This is much further along than the generals list was a year ago. I think it is useful to have the information on line as far as it goes and to edit it further over time. Of course, if you wish to work on some or all of this, that would be great. The date on my draft was September 9, 2010 so I obviously have been putting other articles and projects ahead of this. I think I also felt that with the regular list of generals unfinished, it would seem out of order to proceed further with this list. Donner60 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not been getting any high usage messages lately and I have worked on a few long articles. I wonder if that has loosened up some. I definitely want to keep the confirmation column. Otherwise, a false impression is given as to the date of the award and when the officer could use the brevet title. In George Levy's book To Die in Chicago, about Camp Douglas, he makes a snarky comment about some lower grade officer writing about or addressing "Colonel" Benjamin Sweet when Sweet had already been promoted to brevet brigadier general by that date. Except that he hadn't. The comment or writing was after Sweet's "rank" date but well before he was appointed and confirmed. The commenter or writer would have had to have been a psychic to know that Sweet would have been awarded a higher grade retroactive to that date. I think we do not need to be as worried about the length here. I would rather take out all the regular substantive grade generals and rely on notes or columns in the regular generals article than cut down the information on the brevet only generals. As I noted, if I knew a way to cut out the table gridlines and keep all the information - in a readable format - that would reduce the kilobytes dramatically without reducing the information. On the other hand, although the page is long, it is not as long as the number of kilobytes alone would normally indicate because of the format. I think all of this is good and useful information. I think we should not overload the notes column, but the rest of it gives a more complete picture. Unlike most of the regular generals, many of these officers have no article and it may be awhile, if ever, before they get one. So I would urge that the article be built up unless someone like an administrator insists that it must be reduced or split. There may even be a way to split off the bottom lists from the brevets only if it came to that. Donner60 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It will be a little work to fill in the blanks but I think it will be a useful resource. The dates will help in writing articles with accuracy as well as for general information. Donner60 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Llewellyn Garrish Estes.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Llewellyn Garrish Estes.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Henry Lawrence Eustis.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Henry Lawrence Eustis.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:George Peabody Estey.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:George Peabody Estey.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:George Ruter Elstner.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:George Ruter Elstner.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:General John Edwards.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:General John Edwards.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Image uploads[edit]

Hello Icarus, These are great images but I would recommend that you upload them to Wikimedia Commons. That way they will be available for all of the other Wikis as well. Before doing that, you may want to make sure that you have a unified login account across all of the Wikis.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, IcarusPhoenix. Some images you recently uploaded are in danger of being deleted, because you have not indicated the source from which you obtained them. You will need to go back to each image and tell us where you obtained them. Please do this within the next week or the files will be deleted. The files involved are:

If there are any questions please let me know on my Talk page. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Infobox ranks; brevets[edit]

Before I got your message, I acceded to Hlj's request and changed back the infoboxes I changed yesterday, except for Barlow which still lists major general and brevet major general. I left the substantive changes (dates, details of promotions or brevets) in the text. Some articles had them already I have not tried to search back before yesterday to see others I might have changed because I think it would be too long a task for the return on the time and I do not think I could necessarily find others I may have made in the past. I also did not finish reviewing the changes made by Searcher 1990 and the IP address which may well be the same person. I think your suggestion is a great compromise. It would be more accurate, in my view, and would not require the brevet rank to be listed as an award. I am not sure whether Hlj will agree. It would be best to have a consensus on this, of course. I am not sure he will read your comment, so I will contact him tomorrow. It has gotten a little too late to try to do more tonight. Donner60 (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hlj, who freely refers to his personal web site, is traveling to a Civil War event in Virginia and will be out for about 10 days. He probably will be busy not only attending the event but writing his personal experiences and impressions on his web site. Nonetheless, he may respond to an e-mail. This is not something that can not wait for some days if he has no time to consider it. I am not saying that he should have veto power over a good idea, but consensus would be better and he may have some additional thoughts. If we have a split opinion, we might ask the view of a few other active editors on Civil War articles. I may not have the best overview but I think there are not many who are doing more than minor corrections and revisions at this time. I was busier than expected today and will send the e-mail tomorrow. Donner60 (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. Since I do not have a lot of communication with other editors, I have occasionally forgotten to check all of the pages on which there may be replies or comments as well as e-mail addresses before I write something. So occasionally I have to do a little catching up or backtracking. Hal seems to be quite an energetic and vigorous guy. We know from his web site that he is about 62 or 63 years old, runs marathons, is retired and does a fair amount of traveling. He also seems to do a considerable amount of reading and research and is an excellent writer. He has contributed quite a lot to Wikipedia, not the least of which are his excellent maps. He is hard to keep up with. I respect his opinion and try to keep in line with him unless I might truly disagree, with some research to back me up. As it has turned out, I think I only disagree with him on one or two relatively minor matters of style or substance. I am glad he is on board with the idea since it is a good one. As you know, I think the importance of Civil War brevet appointments can be much overstated. Some people, probably not including Hal, may be influenced by the backdating of the rank dates and do not realize that most of the Civil War brevet appointments were made in 1866 or even later. Even if the rank had some substantive significance under law and regulations, few of the appointees were ever in a position to exercise the prerogatives of the rank. Donner60 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

David Bullock Harris[edit]

I am glad you are watching the Confederate generals list. I am pleasantly surprised that it has not been vandalized much but I would think it would be a potential target. Reverting vandalism quickly is probably one of the best ways to discourage it. I looked up David Bullock Harris. According to Eicher and Allardice he was a Confederate colonel and for a time was an "acting" brigadier general. The sources cited by the person behind the IP address who added Harris's name to the "might-have-been" list are not the best: find-a-grave and an article about World War I soldiers which makes a reference to Harris as an ancestor and CSA near general. Eicher, Civil War High Commands, and Allardice, More Generals in Gray, are good sources. So the name is legitimate. I guess the question then becomes whether he should be on the list. He was an engineering officer under Beauregard who did good work in planning defenses in several locations, including early actions at Petersburg. He died of yellow fever, October 10, 1864. He was recommended for promotion to brigadier general and may even have been told he would get the promotion. But it did not happen even though Bullock has been listed as a brigadier general in some reputable sources such as Heitman and Cullum. His contribution may be enough to merit a brief article, but maybe not enough to put in a general's list - except perhaps to note his erroneous listing in some reputable sources. I could go either way with it. As long as we include some of the "might-have-beens" but not others, it is a judgment call on notability. It seems to me that the included officers usually have been more notable in performing brigadier general duties for some period of time, but it may be a close call. I thought I would mention this to see if you had any further thoughts. Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I was not firm, I think the above showed I was leaning toward the opinion you expressed on Harris. I agree with your reasoning. I thought that might be your opinion, especially knowing that you had drawn up the original list. Only the edit summary by itself led me to bring this up because it left me unsure whether you had double checked the reliable sources or were relying only on the fact that the lesser sources were used. There have been a couple of instances of vandalism of the list, one of the Lees was hit some time back.
I have changed my mind a few times on what to include and how to include it in the Confederate generals list. When the reminders about length disappeared, I thought I would include a little more information. I also wanted to be consistent, which led me to be inclusive. I now think I should have excluded some of what I added. Despite the extra time it will take, I intend to do that, but I want to do it with a plan, not randomly. One way to keep some of the information but cut the length would be to use more abbreviations, as you have done. I will likely get to that at some point.
I consider it a work in progress, not a nearly complete final version after a few more edits. I plan to abbreviate some categories of items after I finish my current round of changes. As part of those changes, I also am considering deleting some of the items. Battles and campaigns participated in may be a good candidate. These may be notable because the officer was severely wounded or killed but most of this information should be in the articles. I do think the lists can be useful sources of certain types of information for reference or comparative purposes while reference to each individual article would be tedious. Of course, I may have some information that is not in that type of category, and that would be the material that would be the most obvious to be eliminated.
You are right about the biographies. I probably could have written most of the missing ones in the time I have spent on the list and perhaps that would have been more productive. I expect my current round of edits will improve the list and the next, and hopefully last, round after that will polish it up. You may like it more when I finally get to that point. It will take a little time because I find work within the grid lines a little slow. Also, one must think in terms of conveying bits of information while saving space, not necessarily writing or editing sentences as we would do in most cases. And, of course, it is not the only article I may wish to work on, or feel the need to review or work on, over a period of time. (I have been working rather steadily on it and to a lesser extent on the brevet generals list so I am not ignoring them even if I occasionally do some other writing or editing.)
What we have is far better than what we started with. The list was woefully incomplete when we started working on it over a year ago. I think we have a better reference now that we have a list that may have a little more information than a final version might contain, and proceed to work it down to a more summary presentation, than to have a list that did not even have all the ranks as we had earlier last year. I also think that in this case I may produce a good end product by working down from longer items than I would have by writing brief, and possibly non-uniform, items as I went along without further work on it. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)". Thank you. --Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Problem with the Generals' lists[edit]

Hi. I saw your request on my talk page for some assistance, so I took a look at the two articles. On the Union side, she is essentially just expanding abbreviations, which I think is unnecessary, but does not give me a heart attack. On lengthy list articles like this, I think the use of abbreviations is well justified, but changing them hardly counts as vandalism. (I did notice the use of the term "Congressional Medal of Honor", which is incorrect. It is simply Medal of Honor. Also, replacing USV with Volunteer Army is not a good idea. The latter term is one more associated with the changes the Nixon administration made ending the draft in the 1970s. If USV has to be expanded, it should be U.S. Volunteers.)

On the Confederate side, I have not really followed the evolution of this article. I agree with the sentiment that reproducing summaries of the article in a Notes column is not a good idea. (And I am going to guess that the source for this material was not summaries of the articles, but some place else.) It not only makes the article unreasonably long, it offers opportunities for the list and the bio articles to get out of sync.

While I agree that it is annoying when someone makes massive changes without prior discussion, it is an argument more about civility than it is about substance. So I'm not sure what help I can be here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply; on the Medal of Honor front, I recall having some trepidation about using CMOH at the time, but did so because it was a generally-accepted abbreviation in period writings; in retrospect, I agree with changing it. As for the "Volunteer Army" sentiment, that was what first set off my internal alarms that things had suddenly changed.
I happen to agree with the general opinion that the CSA notes section is too long and redundant, which is why Donner60 was already condensing them to be more in-line with those of the sister article before Brightgalrs came a long and eliminated them entirely. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
What he should have done was use one of the templates to show that the article was currently being worked on, and then it would have been clear that her massive edit was disruptive procedurally. However, if he has saved his partially condensed work and can complete it off-line, he could reapply those changes, adding the abbreviated note fields, and it would not be treated as a reversion of this person's work. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I am only peripherally and incidentally involved in this article. So I would be presumptuous to venture an opinion when I have nothing to base it upon. I suggest you talk to user (Berean Hunter talk), as I know civil war articles are of special interest. Best wishes and happy editing. He is astute and balanced. 7&6=thirteen () 00:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I have posted a lengthy (ironically, probably too lengthy, but you will note the reason) explanation, comment and proposal on the Talk:List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) page. I am sorry about the delay. I was traveling and unable to reply before now. I hope my reply serves some purpose. I will have little additional time for comment or for the article for about the next two weeks. One might think he has all the time in the world to work on something but sooner or later someone may have some objection or see an opportunity for an easy big edit before the matter is finished. That is why I usually try to get a final or near final draft off line before posting some new article or big revision. It was not feasible, or at least not desirable, to do that in the case of this long incomplete and disorganized article. Thanks for your contributions. Donner60 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Generals Lists Status[edit]

Hi: You may have noticed that I have removed the too long tag from the List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate). I have reduced the size of the article by about 50 per cent from its largest size. It is still longer than the Union list and even the brevet generals list but it is in the same ball park. My use of asterisks and line breaks in the notes makes the entries cleaner and easier to follow. The downside is that they increase the number of bytes considerably. With perhaps a few exceptions, I have cut all the pre-war material from the notes except military education or experience and political office. I have kept most of the wartime material on ranks before promotion to general, wounded, killed, key assignments or incidents (for some). For famous generals, I may have a few other lines. I cut almost all the postwar material, even political offices. I have some references to the longest-lived generals. I would have like to keep some of this material but I did not think I could get the total space down to something that might justify removal of the tag and perhaps not attract others that don't like the length. I wanted to have the dates of lower ranks and general officer appointments because it is a good reference when writing or reviewing articles to check on the rank of the officer on the dates in question. Sources sometimes don't give the rank, or correct rank.

I split off the bottom three sections into List of American Civil War Generals (Acting Confederate) in order to get the size down. Of course, I then kept just the names and links in the main article, enough to add about 12,000 bytes. I had puzzled over what to call the list and decided that Acting Confederate was the most concise and most nearly accurate for all three categories.

I have been writing biographies for all of the officers that had red links in any of the sections. I have about six militia generals left to do. After that, I will look through Allardice to see if any of those not listed and for whom there are no articles should have articles. With the additional Confederate list, I could include any of these in the list rather than just leave them hanging out to keep the list from growing in size. I think even Allardice admits that some of these other generals have no real claim to the office but merely gained mention as generals in the postwar period. Maybe even some stub articles would be a good addition.

I think that many of the generals' articles actually are too brief or could be better written or referenced. That may be my next project although I also want to expand some battle articles and write some new articles on some of the more interesting or important "minor" battles. Obviously, all the major battles are covered, and in most if not all cases, covered well.

I spent too much time experimenting with how much I could include in the lists but I learned quite a bit. I can probably spot erroneous additions or phony names more easily now. I also may have better background for writing articles. I am not sure whether I will write much on Union generals, although I might add to or edit some of the articles, which I have already done. Most, if not all of the substantive generals already have articles. Unless a brevet general has an outstanding accomplishment, biographies of brevet generals would be low on my list. I ran across James Cameron (Union colonel) which I wrote about recently. He was Simon Cameron's brother and was killed at the First Battle of Bull Run. I thought that was interesting enough to add, even though he had no claim to being a general.

I hope the lists are complete or nearly so and we won't have to bother too much with them in the future. I do think that I need to look at the introductory article again. It may need some revisions, additions or deletions now that the lists are in final form and I have learned a little more about the topic of Civil War generals.

I hope all is well with you. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Gettysburg Casualties[edit]

On Saturday, September 29, 2012, I personally toured the Visitors Center (cornerstone: 2008) at the Gettysburg National Military Park. It includes a film, visit to the Cyclorama, and self-guided tour through the 20,000 square foot museum. Displayed on a large video monitor within the museum are the following casualty figures: 23,000., 28,000. Among the dwindling supporters of the 'generalized figure of 28,000' is apparently the National Park Service.--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

a) the Gettysburg memorial predates the later research
It's a new video inside the museum ca 2008.
b) the National Park Service's purpose is preservation and tourism, not academic research.
Historical research employees of the NPS have included one Ed Bearss.--Donaldecoho (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone write a letter to Ed Bearss and get an opinion on BM?

"BM is definitive" is the hypothesis.
"BM is not definitive" is the Null hypothesis, and can never be proven.

Reject the null hypothesis is my advice to the proponents of BM. I can't even attempt to prove the null hypothesis except with weak rhetoric like the following:

It's quite easy to write a book and get to the level of 600,000th best seller on Amazon; I've done it three times myself. BM is at the level of 1,200,000th best seller, and that makes it twice as irrelevant as any of my three turds.

Why cannot an authoritative opinion in support of BM be found? Frankly, it's not my responsibility, as architect of the null hypothesis, to find it.

Oh, if an authoritative opinion in support of BM's definitiveness were identified, you would accomplish the thing that all of your other words have sought and not accomplished. You would discredit me.--Donaldecoho (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, VA, also quotes the "non-definitive" figures. If you have the time please harvest some cane, stoke the mill, and pour some sugar on me. 500 words will suffice.--Donaldecoho (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Great work on the Chamberlain page.[edit]

Trophy.png Great work on the Chamberlain page.
Nice work on the Chamberlain article, I just created Abner O. Shaw's page, you can have a look. I'm putting up a website www.joshualawrencechamberlain.com you might be interested, or able to help. Suzenatale (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cold Harbor Casualties[edit]

Hi. I saw your posting on my talk page. I would not go too overboard on the criticism here. The Young work I am citing is really very new, and I would not expect many of the readers to have access to it. My primary complaint about the anonymous IP editor is that he is not taking care to keep citations in sync with his changes, nor is he using the talk page or the edit summaries. By the way, regarding Gettysburg casualties, which you mentioned in your posting: when I switched that article over to the Busey and Martin figures, I was sort of out on a limb because very few secondary sources were citing that work at the time. I am pleased to say that over the last couple of years I have seen a lot more authors talking about 46-48,000 casualties that B&M document instead of the traditional 51,000. Part of the problem with this older number is that the National Park Service still uses it, although employees I have talked to privately tell me that they do not have the political clout to make a change of that type. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for watching my user page and reverting the persistent vandal who has been at work there tonight. I reverted a couple of his edits to George Orwell and he has been after me since then. I have reported this so I think an administrator should get around to blocking him soon. I have written a few articles and made some substantive edits this year and I have started a few new ones or revisions that I hope to get up soon. Reverting vandals is useful and increases one's edit count but there are others who do it and there is considerable content still to be created or revised. I hope you are doing well. Donner60 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Userpage Protection Barnstar.PNG The Userpage Shield
Thanks for reverting a persistent vandal to my user talk page. Donner60 (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year IcarusPhoenix![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello IcarusPhoenix:
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) 06:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Explaining[edit]

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the "this code could be malicious and could compromise your account" warning is automatic for any change to your .css or .js. It had nothing to do with me. DS (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)