User talk:Grayghost01/Archive 1

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

Contents

Naming of Civil War battles

The Civil War Task Force (WP:ACW) and its predecessors agreed to use the official National Park Service designations for battles as the main titles for Civil War articles. Hence, while indeed the Third Battle of Winchester is the common usage in the town of Winchester, the Battle of Opequon is what the government calls the battle. Hence, Wikipedia follows suit. Manassas seems to be an exception to this rule of thumb, but in general, Wiki editors follow this convention. This is why I (and others later) reverted your changes from Opequon to Third Winchester so as to be consistent with Wiki convention. If you strongly disagree, please join the task force and air your views on its message board; you are most welcome to do so!

Scott Mingus 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't have any ancestors at this specific battle, it holds less interest for me than places where my great-grandfathers actually fought (such as Antietam and Gettysburg). Hence, I will defer to whatever the general consensus of the editors is. Scott Mingus 04:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

User Page

Hey Grayghost01, if you have the time, please create a User Page telling us a little more about yourself. Thanks for joining the ACW Task Force. Feel free to add its logo to your User Page, and welcome aboard! Feel free to call on myself or other members of the task force for advice or ideas. Regards from snowy York County, PA! Scott Mingus 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing! Welcome aboard! Scott Mingus 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Winchester

I was away for the weekend while you added all of the comments to my user page regarding Second Winchester. I am running short of time to give you a detailed response today, but will do so ASAP. When I do, I will be copying your comments into the talk page for the battle article and responding there. I believe the discussion is of more general interest than simply a one-on-one communication. A short preview of my comments is that I will have no problem listing alternative views on the number of casualties. I did that in the Battle of the Wilderness article, as you have noted. I am not one, however, who believes the Official Records are always the most accurate source, so I generally prefer to get information from secondary sources, historians who have analyzed the Official Records as well as many of the other primary sources that are available and use their best judgment as to the correct answer. I have no personal ax to grind about how the numbers are eventually portrayed, so please do not assume that I am trying to deliberately promulgate incorrect information. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote this last night, I have decided to change my approach to this. I often try to assist other editors with their formatting and presentation, but I do not like to do it while major work is in progress. It simply causes frustration on both sides. (Generally, however, there are very few major changes being implemented in articles. Usually, people only throw in a paragraph or two. So your case is an exception.) Go ahead and make the changes that you are planning to make and let me know when you are finished on both the battle article and Milroy. I can then take a pass through them and get the Wikipedia formatting and our own ACW style guidelines implemented. (In case you have not looked at it, I wrote a style guide that I use on all of my articles, and the ACW task force has informally adopted them.)
By the way, this battle has my only significant familial ties to the war. My great great great uncle was in the 18th Connecticut, captured at Winchester. (There are others I know about from Rhode Island, but they had no significant combat experiences.) Hal Jespersen 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tour offer. I have no immediate plans to be in the Valley, unfortunately, but will file this away. (I'll be at the CWPT meeting in Portsmouth next month, however.) My last trip to the vicinity was to Lexington, which you can read about in my periodic CW travelogue: http://www.posix.com/CW05/index.html#CWPT
I enjoy doing email with CW folks. You can reach me via email from my User page's yellow stripe on top.
Regarding your comments on Federals, it is likely the original poster will not see your response unless you go to his Talk page. I actually like Federal as a noun because it balances Confederate exactly. Hal Jespersen 01:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Winchester in the CW

Thanks for pulling the material from the city article and making it as a separate entity. I will change my template to direct to this new article. Nice work, and feel free to expand the Civil War material in an encyclopedic fashion.

regards from Yankeedom! Scott Mingus 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Romney Expedition

Hal has been the primary author and watchkeeper over the Civil War articles. I joined Wikipedia long after he had created the bulk of the major articles. As a member of the WP:ACW, I try to help out by creating articles for lesser known, but still noteworthy generals and battles, and occasionally dabble in editing existing articles or fighting vandalism. I took the project to create and monitor state and city articles under my wing, as I thought this would be a useful addition. The Romney article someone else previously wrote, and, frankly, it was a disjointed mess. I heavily edited it for a little better flow, although I still question whether it should have been written in the first place.

Anyone is free to edit and create articles, so there is no primary person that you need permission from. Anything controversial or questionable can and should, of course, be brought to the task force for consideration. I would agree that the Romney Expedition deserves a short article; Jackson's raids as well. I have not had the time or background experience in these areas to adequately write them, so go ahead! They would be a useful addition.

I agree that for the early part of the war, Romney was a pro-South town, and I like the suggestion of Border / Disputed. Some authors have classified WV as a border state, but technically it was not. The actual state of VA (including Romney) was a part of the South as the war began, and the WV portion in the Northern camp by 1863. Disputed works for me. I will make the change.

Scott Mingus 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Scott is overstating my role, although I have written a number of campaign and battle articles. (My niche has generally been to originate the theater and campaign articles, most of the major battle articles in the eastern and western theaters, and a number of the major biographies below the hyper visible Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. I have also played a role in standardizing the style of formatting articles, naming units, using ranks, etc.)
My methodology for creating campaign articles is usually to start with the NPS CWSAC battle summaries and then flush them out with maps, high-level orders of battle, backgrounds, and aftermaths. Thus, the contents of these campaigns are strongly influenced by the National Park Service. I was not the one who made this original decision -- I can't remember the name of the guy who converted all of those NPS files into article stubs and campaign boxes -- but I have been pretty content in following that organization. There were almost 10,000 actions in the Civil War and it is a judgment call about which of them are notable enough for encyclopedia articles. We do not want every tiny skirmish that someone's Civil War ancestor happened upon to be elevated to an article called Battle of So-And-So. It is reassuring to me that the professional historians of NPS are providing the majority of the judgment in this space and not the random mob.
I cannot say that I am familiar at all with the Romney expedition or the other actions you mention. If you can cite some secondary sources that link these with the traditional Jackson Valley Campaign, that will be okay for me. Please do not come up with an argument similar to "It is in the ORs and there is a plaque in downtown Romney that says so." I'd like to see a reference to someone like Gary Gallagher, Bud Robertson, or Robert Krick citing these actions in a book or a chapter specifically tied to the Valley Campaign, not simply Jackson's early career. Hal Jespersen 18:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The Romney Expedition was a fairly significant and well documented event. Perhaps the best modern coverage by a known author is a chapter in Robert G. Tanner's excellent 2002 book, Stonewall in the Valley: Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign, Spring 1862. John Selby's 2000 biography of Jackson also dives into the expedition, as well as the train raid, and analyzes them in the context of Jackson's Valley Campaign. Gallagher's book on the Valley Campaign is also a useful source, and there was a great article on the train raid in North and South a while back. Scott Mingus 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, fine with me. Hal Jespersen 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Romney, and extent of Wiki ACW coverage

Scott & Hal, I think Scott's references demonstrate the sources which tie Romney to the Valley Campaign, and I will put these as references on the Romney Expedition page. You will notice that the RE page explains the reason why the Romney Expedition and the following Insurrection of Loring set up the whole chain of events that began the VC. If not for that episode, Jackson may have, instead, peformed a "BRAGG-KENTUCKY" type affair, with a larger force. Instead, Jackson was forced to abandon Winchester, and was put into the position of having to interact as he did with Banks.

What is the goal of Wikipedia? Is it to be an ever-growing and unabridged encyclopedia of the world? If so, in my own opinion, it is a great venue to summarize the entire ACW, by topics, by battles, by whatever threads are of interest. I see all the goofy biographies on living people, and also others who obviosly stick in their own self-articles to promote themselves. Surely history deserves a front seat to that. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the ACW in Wiki should cover, if possible, every noteworthy event in some summary form, and every skirmish. The level and taxonomy should determine relative coverage, then.

In that light, I propose that you consider a classification of "expeditionary operations" which is analgous but different from the "campaign operations". Expeditionary operations, by the book, have been around for a long time, and the USMC views the world heavily from this angle, and uses the Confederate actions as their textbook of sorts, along with the infamous "Small Wars Manual" they wrote, and still use. The Red-River, Romney and other such episodes are better viewed as expeditionary operations, and given the definition of expeditionary you will see why.

I also propose a lower-tier of "Skirmishes" and "Raids". This is a vital category deserving its own treatment. Often these are NOT tied in to the campaign they occur in the middle of, such as the Raid to assassinate President Davis in Richmond. Some, like the "raid" into Ohio does not fit the defintion of a raid (though called that from time to time) and is fittingly called an "expedition".

As a retired Marine, and former Instructor at the Marine Corps University, I want to point out that so many people write on the topic of the ACW, that they often mis-categorize events, or are the ones giving events "names" that were not originally used by the veterans of the war. E.g. our own current "Gettysburg Campaign" was certainly never called that at the time it occurred. In looking back, the taxonomy and naming convention becomes useful.

I see how the National Park Service was invoked, which seems that they simply had SOMETHING on the web which was convenient for some early wikipedians to pull in. Okay. But while I think that was a good start ... and much may not change from that ... the taxonomy of the Battles, Expeditions, Raids and Skirmishes of the ACW should be reflected from consideration of the Body of Literature as its main influence.

So to that end, I propose this taxonomy for consideration: Theaters Campaigns (& Campaign Battles) Expeditions (& Expedition Battles) Raids Skirmishes

Ponder this, and I will get back to you with definitions and terms to define these a bit. Grayghost01 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, since we seem to be having a three-way conversation, it is suboptimal for you to post the same text in two user pages. I have put your user page into my watchlist and I suggest that Scott do the same. As long as you do not get an excessive amount of unrelated traffic on your page, this will be the simplest way to communicate.
Here is my personal opinion about Wikipedia. You can take it or leave it. There is an entire article about what Wikipedia is not. I think there is way too much trivial information that is being added in the hopes that Wikipedia will be a giant database of all known information. I look at it with a focus on its original intended purpose, which was to be the equivalent of an encyclopedia, which summarized information about notable topics in a reliable way. There is also an article on notability, which essentially says that we should be writing about events that are the subject of published works. I interpret this to mean the subject of secondary sources, the published work of professional historians. I do not include the Official Records in this category because they are essentially an enormous collection of primary sources -- after action reports, correspondence, etc. -- assembled without much critical historical scholarship. (In fact, by allowing some veterans to modify their reports many years after the fact, they can be a tainted source of information.)
So I would place the decision on whether a raid or skirmish should be included in Wikipedia firmly on the basis of whether the action was the nontrivial subject of a secondary source. Did a secondary source include more than a mere passing mention of the action, describing it in some detail and explaining its significance as part of a larger campaign? I would exclude the OR's and any of those sources that are merely chronological lists, providing a phrase or a sentence about an action.
As to your classification scheme, I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with it. We recently had an incident where someone wrote an article about a skirmish and named it Battle of So-And-So. I suggested that it be renamed Skirmish of So-And-So and I think it was Scott who did the renaming. We already have some articles about raids, so that is not a problem either. I do not know exactly what you mean by expedition battles, however.
I would give you one additional piece of advice. The easiest way to get started effectively in Wikipedia is to pick a few articles to write or improve. That way, you get up to speed on the formatting and editing conventions, and the methods of interpersonal communications and compromise, that you will need. About a year ago, I witnessed an extremely enthusiastic group of new editors who formed their own task force, created a portal, started working on a variety of grand classification schemes, and then essentially petered out. Scott has been actively assisting that process, but I would venture to say that 90% of all of the useful work was Scott's alone. So my suggestion would be for you to focus on establishing some top-notch articles in the 400 or so battles that we document (and those Valley campaign battles that you have just identified) before trying to push that closer to 10,000. Hal Jespersen 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by the way. I just looked at Romney, West Virginia during the American Civil War for the first time and that is a very appropriate way of dealing with lots of minor actions -- collect them as part of a larger article about a campaign or geographic location, rather than attempting to place them into separate articles. However, you should be aware that the editing gods of Wikipedia do not favor articles that use bulleted lists. If you ever decided to get this article reviewed as a featured article, they would undoubtedly insist that you rewrite the article without the bullets. Hal Jespersen 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 29 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Romney Expedition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Newsletter - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Virginia 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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Newsletter October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Virginia 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki formatting

You might want to take a look at WP:MARKUP to see some of the tricks that are available with MediaWiki, especially "blending" (third box). Also, one quirky idiom that you may want to know is

''<nowiki/>'

, which performs a close-italic-apostrophe for, say, a possessive of a ship's name.

Finally, if you're not familiar with the Ships WikiProject, WP:SHIP may have some relevant suggestions for writing naval articles. chrylis (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

White Hall, VA

Thanks for posting the pictures. I'm moving out there soon. <3

-Mary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.124.16 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Milhist

Hi! I see you're a member of the American Civil War task force but not of the Military history wikiproject itself. Would you like to sign up? You can do so here. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up :) Here's the standard Welcome message. Please delete it if it's telling you how to suck eggs :)

Rank styling

Please see HALMOS to learn about the conventions used on ranks in Wikipedia articles. Ranks should not be changed without having a discussion among editors and coming to a consensus first. That is how the current conventions were adopted. Until a new consensus is decided, I am reverting to what is in keeping with the current consensus per procedure. Thank you, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You left a mysterious note on my talk page about military ranks. I don't know who you are, however, if this is concerning the abbreviations of military ranks of the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy being used on Wikipedia, then I can let you know this. Despite being a retired officer and knowing what the rank abbreviations are, I made some phone calls down to the Penagon today. Abbreviations used by wiki such as "Maj. Gen." for a Major General in the U.S. Army is nonsensical nothing that means nothing, and is not the proper abbreviation for an official title of an officer commissioned such by the U.S. Congress. Wiki should use proper noun titles and their abbreviations for all such entitled persons in its encyclopedic articles, whether Barons, Lords, Generals, Admirals or what have you. There's no debate on the subjet to be had. I'm just informing you that Wiki is not following correct naming conventions and protocols or the accompanying guidance issued by the U.S. Government about it's officers. What convention Wiki chooses to use, if it does not conform to the style guides published by the U.S. Army and Navy, is meaningless. President George Bush is not "P. Bush", and LTG Dempsey, acting commander of USCENTCOM is not "Lieut. Gen. Dempsey". Basically there is no such thing as "Lieut. Gen." as it is not a real abbreviation. Sincerely,

Grayghost01 (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read my reply to you on this page. Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have posted the question on the ACW Task Force talk page for further assistance hopefully.
Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems we are mostly alone on our views about this rank abbreviation issue. Hopefully between the 2 of us we can talk some sense into these folks.--Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Howdy, Thank you so much for your contribution to the article Uniforms of the Confederate States military forces it has added so much to it, and thanks for all of your hard work on that. Thanks and have a great day!--Duke R. Oliver I His Duchy 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Milhist newsletter

You may have seen around that we're going to retitle the Milhist monthly newsletter, calling it "The Bugle" and giving it a logo. The background to all this is here. As you clearly enjoy graphics, is this something that you'd like to take on? --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You have repeated removed a "SYNTHESIS" Tag from the article Great Train Raid of 1861. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What actually happened, North Shoreman, is this: with no discussion on the talk page, and no agreement from anyone else prior to, or even afterwards, you took it upon solely yourself to apply the following tags to Great Train Raid of 1861:

  • A "neutrality" dispute tag
  • Two "unpublished synthesis" tags
  • An "unverified claim" tag

And that's for an article which has 34 references that are noted about 100 times, for almost every point and sentence in the article. This action followed your complaints that the article didn't give credence to one reference which merely disputes a starting date, but which overstates its own objection by calling the affair "totally fiction". When I pointed out that your reference is nonsensical in its own presentation of logic and reason, and thus not a good primary reference for the primary construction of the article (which is based on the other 34 references), you inserted entire paragraphs of "postive reviews" on the one reference that you liked. That's about the time (with no discussion or agreement) put on the "neutrality" tag. Of course, later, an independent reviewer agreed that the material really needed to go down with something smaller on your POV being at the top. That is, you believe the raid is fiction, and so you only use one reference ever written that tries to assert that. Sharing POV's, your neutrality is gone. In my case, I maintain the article should reflect the preponderance of sources (a neutral stance).

Then you added more language trying to dispute all the other references written over the last 147 years as questionable, except for the one reference you endorse, of course. Then you put a four to five paragraph long material on this up in the introduction to the article, such that a viewer sees mostly this "totally fiction" and other such railings down to the bottom of the viewing window. The "reversion" you assert was simply my moving of all that stuff to the end of the article, where most controversies of a topic are usually addressed in an article, with explanations for each edit.

Lastly, I created a paragraph to discuss all the 30+ resources which treat the affair as historical fact, so that a reader can get a good summary of the sources used for the article. That would be normal in the presentation of material under controversy. (1 against 34, but I suppose it is mildly controversial). This is when the "synthesis" and "unverified claim tags" enter the picture ... again performed soley by yourself with no discussion or consensus from anyone. The resource table was created and the paragraph expanded to explain all the 30+ resources, after which I took it upon myself to then remove the label applied all by yourself, and explained that the synthesis was presented of the 30+ resources, and to add in your personal trek of verifying the "claims" which are all really published writings, readily available to anyone. Thus, again a "reversion" claim from you because the material was added, with explanation, when the tag was taken off.

Finally, you fail to mention that you have plastered this article with many citation tags also. Thus each point in the article is cited, and many with multiple citations. Normally this would not be necessary, and it not good for reading and presentation purposes, but I have obliged you there as well.

Given your methodology and approach, I take a complaint from you as a badge of honor, and therefore know I must be doing something right. Your spirit, which is overly demanding, and contentious attitude are not the proper ones for wiki, and demonstrate exactly the reason I began contributing to wiki in the first place: to counter intentional revisionistic articles, exclusively citing one point of view, based on selective resourcing.

Perhaps one day all wiki articles on the ACW can be like this one, and lay out an extensive resourcing and resource use, such that selective revisionistic resourcing can be brought to an end.

Thus I believe this article to be a fair presentation of the historians as a whole, well resourced, and thoroughly interwoven (synthesized) among the resources. I know of no "unverifiable claim", nor have you said what one is for this article.

Grayghost01 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

CSS Alabama

You’ve done a lot of work on the CSS Alabama; I’ve left some comments here and here. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something for you

Acw bs 8 comp grd.png The American Civil War Barnstar
For your work in developing and designing this, which went far beyond the call of duty, please accept the first-ever award of the American Civil War barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal warning

Please stop making personal attacks on North Shoreman as you have here and here. You should remain civil at all times and avoid engaging in disruptive editing. Failure to comply with policy on this may well lead to you being blocked. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The fellow mentioned writes material on the discussion page which indicates he has not READ the references I use. Then he claims I am writing my "opinions" into the article. I have edited this article to a point where almost every sentence contains a direct quote in quotation marks, and almost every sentence cites a reference. This fellow follows me around wherever I contribute, and continues to do this on articles I contribute to. He is harrasing, and intentionally doing so. If pointing this out is a personal attack, then so be it. Block me. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy my partial pastime of contributing, and get back to work on the Confederate States Naval Academy and other such items. If the fellow does this again on the next article, and the next, and the next, I will be back on your discussion page to point it out, every time it occurs. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what I am addressing here is your editing style and your individualistic approach to civility and consensus. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Roger, in my opinion that when a paragraph of several sentences, each containing quotation language and a citation for each sentence to a page in a book on a history of Virginia railroads in the Civil War is "tagged" with a "synthesis" tag ... and done so without and prior to any discussion on the talk page ... the civility and consensus problem belongs to someone else. In this article a dozen sources on history of CW railroads in Virginia need to be given due consideration, and it is not "synthesis" to use and cite such sources, even if they disagree with Robertson's book on a different topic other than railroads.

warning

After spending some time looking over Great Train Raid of 1861 and its talk page(s), I find that you've been editing towards your own original research on this topic. Whether or not you agree your edits have been original research doesn't have much sway: This Wikipedia policy has grown through wide consensus and moreover, there is a consensus on the talk pages that your edits are indeed original research (cite spanning and synthesis). Moreover, you have taken this to a level of disruption by editing tendentiously and making personal attacks against editors who don't agree with you, along with straightforward and steady edit warring. Please stop. If you carry on any further with this behaviour, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Every single edit I've been putting in to this has reached a point of directly quoting phrases and sentences out of books, placing it in quotation marks, and citing the page number. The main references for this article are books on the history of railroads in the Civil War in Virginia. There is not a lick of "original research" in any of it. Therefore I disagree with your conclusion.Grayghost01 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please carefully read Wikipedia:OR#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position. On Wikipedia, conclusions themselves must be cited to a reliable source. You can't gather a bunch of verifiable quotes and other citations and then string them together into your own take or outcome: That's original research. You can do it in a book or, say, on a web page over which you or someone who wants to publish you has editorial control, but you can't do it here, ever, it's not allowed. As I said above, Whether or not you agree your edits have been original research doesn't have much sway: This Wikipedia policy has grown through wide consensus and moreover, there is a consensus on the talk pages that your edits are indeed original research (cite spanning and synthesis). This is not about truth, or whether Imboden blocked trains on 23 May 1861, it's about verifiability. Moreover, you've made personal attacks and have edit warred over this. If you carry on doing any of these things, I or another admin will block you for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have not deleted anyone else's material. I have not edit warred. I have made no conclusions, except to express my opinions on the materials on the talk page. You need to look through my edits more carefully. When a handful or more Secondary Sources discuss in slightly differing language the same basic events, I have put in some of this verbage in direct quotes and cited the page numbers. For instance in one particular edit, multiple secondary historians give a specific time of day for the beginning of two-year long affair. These edits are all verifiable, regardless of what is true. I disagree with your conclusions, and I believe you have not read the materials or sources, and compared the citations to the quoted materials in the article, based on what you are saying here. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize your value to Wikipedia

While I have lately tended to disagree with you on specifics and I have admitted chafing at your rabid partisanship and gruff demeanor I want you to know that I enjoy your writing, value your perspective, and respect your opinions. Arguing toward a higher truth is an avocation shared amongst the best of friends, and I want you to know I personally want you to continue to contribute and engage, even though we have lately disagreed. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Totally aside from the wikipedia-centric stuff, the story which we're discussing is absolutely engrossing, and truly deserves its own book. Have you ever considered writing such a work? You're right in the middle of a book preparation, based on the research, photographs, and local knowledge you bring to the effort. What is absolutely true is that the Robertson disagreement makes the original story that much more interesting, and to the point, deserving of its own literary expedition. While SCV myself (and SUV), I reside in the NYC area, and would help with sources if I could be of service. BusterD (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Buster, first of all thanks for the kind note. I can see Robertson's perspective, and his distrust of sources. A true historian should question everything. However, his argument is based on his dislike for Imboden, and if you read his footnotes, he is constantly digging on Imboden, and reaches a point of saying something along the lines that he's going to throw out pretty much anything Imboden says. Now ... when you read Imboden's account, it says practically nothing about this raid. The body of knowledge comes from elsewhere, from Capt Sharp's diary, from J.E. Duke, his assistant, from local newspapers, multiple diaries, Railroad records, Northern newspapers even. For someone to assert that the raid was totally fiction is an undefendable position. Anyway, you are right about the needed book. I've offered my services to my friend Art Candenquist, who wrote the magazine article, and we've been discussing this whole raid for months now. If you have anything to add, we can get offline and I'll get you correctly and properly credited for any help. I do think a book is needed, and at least an up-to-date article for one of the magazines. Thus, this very winter, with the leaves off the trees, I have already told AC that I will "walk the line" and get up to date photos of things like the Opequon ravine and bridge, and etc. This will help, regardless, for AC's tour and CWEA publication he gives. My first care is that the story get told, since a book never makes a whole lot of money anyway. But clearly the book is a fantastic idea.

I've taken this article into my sandbox at: User:Grayghost01/Sandbox1 where I plan to finish it, as the entire second half has not been written on the locomotives going to Richmond, and North Carolina and so much more info. Any good stuff you get, I'll add that in.

In all the heat of discussion about what we should do NOW, it's important we recognize the value of widely varying views. I have some friends who do battlefield guiding in that historic district; I've consulted with them and they also think the story bears further discovery. I appreciate that you've "userfied" the page in order to do your best work at your own pace. That shows wikiwisdom. Far be it from me to offer advice, but I would suggest one approach might be to sit back, refrain from editing the live version of the page in question, and come back in a week or two to see how pagespace evolves under different eyes. Comparing the version you're working on to the version you refrain from editing might reveal compelling comparisons and variances. I reiterate, this is a fascinating story worthy of book-length treatment. I encourage your engaging in this complicated but important topic. I'd really love to see someone do a book length treatment of Benjamin Huger's William Mahone's brilliant bloodless capture of the Norfolk Navy Yard in 1861, but until then, we don't have an article on the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

When Northshoreman went through the article and put a FACT-TAG in dozens of locations, I took the bait and began addressing all that with direct quotations, and citations of pages in books. When this revealed with even more substantiation the shut down of the railroad, Northshoreman responded with the full-out section-deletion assault. I've stopped bothering editing this article days ago, having already come to the conclusion that you have reached. There is no point, because Northshoreman has put so many tags on the thing, I can't even respond to one and talk-discussion that point, without getting a half more dozen added. When responded to his points, point-by-point in the now archived section, he didn't seem to care what the references said, and insisted on the article saying a certain thing. I'll work on it in my sandbox, and people can take what they want. Thanks for your willingness to be reasonable and discuss it out here on my page. Grayghost01 (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the tags are distracting, and don't really put our best face on pagespace. If you're a new wikipedia reader, I'm sure you're wondering about the validity of anything so tagged. Switching gears, I see you've added a bunch of news citations, and that's a good thing too. I have virtually unlimited access to periodicals in NYC, so if you need a specific citation, I can get copies the next time I go in to the periodicals reading room (which I do several times a year; I'd make a special trip to assist in this matter). I urge you to consider North Shoreman a friendly rival as opposed to someone who doesn't also seek the truth. I've developed a great respect for Tom over many years of American History content watching. He's a good guy, if a yankee. BusterD (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BusterD: The problem with Northshoreman started a long long time ago. He went into some other article I had been working on and just started deleting material. He was particularly bent on the word "invade" and said that if this word is assigned to actions of the Union Army it is a "POV". See my essay/notes:User:Grayghost01/WBTS_Revisionism#Did Lincoln and Davis conduct invasions?. He then methodically proceed to go into any article I had contributed to, and do similar types of things. He wouldn't discuss it, wouldn't compromise, and would receive no input, and would not even admit that references existed for the word "invade". I then looked at his contribution trail, and noticed he has a particular slant that he pushes on causes for the war, in various articles. Being methodical and particular are all okay ... but doing it all in a one-sided fashion is not, and no true historian has an interest in that. And in the case of two-sided stories, which the ACW clearly is ... BOTH views need fair presentation. In his case, he forces ONLY one view, and will not leave an article alone until he exhausts the person he is working against. That is not my style. Rather, I have the view that both or multiple sides of issues should all be presented. So we differ tremendously on that point. Since most of the Wiki ACW contributors are primarily intersted in Union-things ... they don't really see or care about this type of slant and tactic. His massive tagging scheme is disruptive and rude. I think he has put a "POV" tag on every higher level ACW article I have contributed to. By contrast, I do not follow him around, doing the same to him. Now .... I could. I could go stick fact-tags on all his contributions, many of which are not cited. I could go stick POV tags, and on and on. But I am dispassionate and could care less. He can present his views to his heart's content. But his deletions and unnecessary tagging of cited, directly quoted, referenced materials is just simply over the top for me. When I responded to his tagging by citing multiple references to each sentence and even phrases within each sentence, and began adding direct quotations, he just couldn't handle that there was that much secondary material which countered his view. So the brand-new tactics of "synthesis" and "original research" came out. He's a never-ending source of new surprises. No other article that I have seen has been forced through such a ringer, unless you were to look at some extremely popular and controversial topic like evolution vs. intelligent design. But this is a mere raid in the civil war. And we haven't even addressed how or why his favorite author, Robertson, first denies 56 locomotives are taken on page 229 ... and then recounts the exact same event on page 245 as complete truth. Northshoreman has ensured only part of Roberston's materials are put in, yet another POV tactic. So, I have better things to do, and he can simply move the entire article as a section under Robertson's bio for all I care. Nonetheless ... as you see in the photo from the Strasburg Museum of the "Great Train Raid of 1861" ... there is a wealth of "verifiable" sources out there, and the very recent Robertson material is certainly not taken seriously by the historical society people around here. So the final question is ... does the article go with overwhelming amounts of verifiable secondary sources and pages and pages of historical writing? Or does it become an expository of Robertson's footnotes from one page of his 950 page book? I submit to you that the later represents a particular POV, and the former is the neutral course, and that to knowingly push the former, when this had been discussed, is to intentionally push a POV. Asking for fair and equal treatment of ALL the secondary sources on ANY article ... is the right thing to do ... and I stick to that belief. Grayghost01 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to insert variant rank abbreviations

You have previous observed in ACW TF talk there is little support for your position on rank abbreviations. Regardless of any qualification, inserting such variants is against the MOS used here on the pedia, and continuing to use those abbreviations after such warning will be considered disruptive editing, will be reverted right away, and may lead to escalating blocks. We're not talking about content, Grayghost01, we're talking about a user who willfully chooses to act against established consensus. Willful disruption is blockable. Don't get that reputation. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Spell out rank, use last name, use the CSA link

In the usual explanation of half-truth, I see that the links that were going to Union army articles for the CSA ranks were put back that way, deleting my good faith edit which was making them point to the recommended CSA rank page. Of course, that's not mentioned, now is it? I only corrected the links to point to the CSA page, because I just happened to be there for something else. In regards to the abhorrent practice of abbreviation, many folks, including myself, prefer to spell out the rank, or leave it off entirely, so my suggestion for a compromise here is to spell out the rank or leave it off entirely. Use the persons rank (current to the article timeframe) the first time, and then use only the last name for the remainder of the article. And that brings up another bothersome issue on the island, in which the out-of-date ranks are often used. I propse that you all call the person by their rank they held at the timeframe the article addresses. Also using "General" as a title for Brigadiers and etc, is only acceptable as a spoken title, not a written title. Do not write Lieutenant General Jackson as "General Jackson".

Here are the links for rank to the CSA article which is how I've seen this suggested elsewhere (by someone else, perhaps Hal?) I will follow this approach myself, so as not to run into the dilemma of consorting to incorrect rank spellings, that is, full rank once, followed by last name from then on. If you do this, then 20 years from now, when you are all long gone, the next round of folks will not have to go through the same rigamarole. Meanwhile, can someone please return to the aforementioned article and PUT BACK the links to the CSA General article, as is the practice elsewhere? Thanks, Grayghost01 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

CONFEDERATE ARMY Ranks:

[[General (CSA) | General]]                                         (Armies)
[[Lieutenant General (CSA) | Lieutenant General]]                   (Corps)
[[Major General (CSA) | Major General]]                             (Divisions)
[[Brigadier General (CSA) | Brigadier General]]                     (Brigades)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Colonel]]            (Regiments)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Lieutenant Colonel]] (Battalions)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Major]]              (Staff positions)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Captain]]            (Companies)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | First Lieutenant]]   (Asst Company)
[[Confederate States Army#Ranks and insignia | Second Lieutenant]]  (Asst Company)

November 2008

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Ashby Gap, you will be blocked from editing. Inserting modern rank abbreviation variants is against consensus as demonstrated in American Civil War task force talk. BusterD (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the false charge of vandalization, because I am not here to vandalize (review my contributions) and are you a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia What is your business with the Ashby's Gap page? Grayghost01 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your latest change on Ashby Gap. Sure wish we could work together. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Namespace vio

I have moved WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/ranks to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/ranks. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. That's the way I've been using them. Input from others is good here but it looks basically correct. BusterD (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Todds Tavern, Virginia

hey, Grayghost01, do you know anything about the battle of Todds Tavern that was fought during the American Civil War? please tell me if so in your user page. i have started the article Todds Tavern, Virginia but i need some historic information. thanks! By the way i am an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia.Morefight (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)morefight

Sorry for reading over your shoulder, but we should have an article covering this, since the NPS has a brochure on the subject. I've requested the article on ACW TF announcements template. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I know a bit about it, mainly because my GGG-grandfather William Moore, 4th South Carolina Cavalry had just attached to the Cavalry Corps of ANV along with the 5th and 6th of Butler's Brigade. I have the unique advantage of knowing some things from his view. They departed South Carolina in March, and though they sat out for the Wilderness, he was in on the actions from 7 May forward in defense of the women and children of Spotsylvania, as the blue horde ineptly pushed forward. Grant (by his puppet Meade) tried to get the blue-blob to advance. The Union cavalry showed their usual ineptness, as this was Custer's Big Band-in-the-Attack month. He pulled that same Band-Tubas-Attacking baloney at the Battle of Haw's Shop where you can see the photo I made of the battlefield. The Union Cav should have kept that intersection, but had given it up. They ended up making a meaningless attack against the ANV, losing a bunch of men for no good reason, and then pulling back, only to find that the ANV fell the trees on the road to slow the Federals down, and beat them to Spotsylvania. What most people don't know about this action is that Wade Hampton's South Carolina boys under Butler were sporting Pattern 1853 Enfields. My GGG-grandfather was able to remove a Union soldier from his saddle at 800 to 1000 yards. Gregg-the-Goofball just kinda sat at the Tavern, doing nothing, and Wade Hampton amassed 3 brigades and handed it to the Feds. Wiki only has this page: Battle of Spotsylvania Court House which show's Todd's Tavern on the map, but makes no mention of it. If I added to it, it would be promptly deleted as "POV". Todd's Tavern deserves it's own article/page and I'm glad User:BusterD jumped in ahead of me to state that (that way it's not my suggestion and again not POV). I'm looking at the Spotsylvania_Court_House_Confederate_order_of_battle which is flat out incorrect saying that Hampton's Division of 3 brigades (which fought at Todd's Tavern) had Butler only "arriving" on 20 May. That's a big boatload of baloney, because my GGG-grandfather was at Todd's Tavern. Anyway, make a page on it, and I'll try to contribute and help you out. The outcome was that the ANV successfully moved into a new position, and so Todd's Tavern, per the main objective, was a Union Loss/Failure both for the quantity of men lost, and the failure to achieve the objectives. Put some stuff about yourself on your user page, so we can get acquainted. Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

i got your message and i did put some things in my user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morefight (talkcontribs) 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Ships

Schooner Linden.jpg
USS Goldsborough DDG-20.jpg
Hello Grayghost01, and welcome to WikiProject Ships!

Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the project talk page. Thank you for joining - we look forward to working with you! Maralia (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite?

I've seen conflicting opinions on that one, & after I got a 3d opinion here preferring wholesale deletion, I'm no longer at all sure the fact tag is appropriate. BTW, I don't doubt gf. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 05:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

canvassing

GrayGhost, you shouldn't do this. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I shouldn't communicate with other ACW contributors. That way only the anti's can chime in, and sourced, cited, photographed materials can be more easily over-ridden that way, right? Sorry, but I will try to bring as much attention as I can and in any way that I can to the "pile ons" and other tactics done around here. Meanwhile check Northshoreman's log for his various behind-the-scenes discussions and attempts to chauffer in voters. If a minor incident in a 150 year old war has almost 40 references, 150 citations, and a photograph of the incident's name hanging outside the museum where it took place ... and that is "disputed" ... then something is seriously wrong with the disputor, and any methodology brought about to attempt to ruin or delete said wiki article. Meanwhile, this other user points out to me that this raid is also part of a video game. Fascinating. Grayghost01 (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Train Raid of 1861

If it makes you feel better, there's a new video game from Activision/History Channel called Civil War: Secret Missions which includes this raid as titled. An advertisement for it is on the back cover of my Feb. 2009 Civil War Times magazine, and in the ad is a screenshot depicting the raid, with this text under it:

In May 1861, Colonel Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson ordered an attack on the B&O Railroad. This is known in history annals as the 'Great Train Raid of 1861'

We have a stub for it here with the wrong title. I'm gonna fix that and then add the screenshot I mentioned to the page if you would like to check it out yourself. Don't really think it helps the GTR '61 article out, and we can't use is as a source, but perhaps the History Channel thinks is the proper name also. On another note, comments from you about this project are welcome, outside what we've already discussed before. I plan to add regular unit histories within reason, among other things, and your input might help. Kresock (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Kresock,
Tell ya what. Let's make a deal. If you're reasonably neutral on the name of the GTR-1861 name (per the Museum in Strasburg and the History Channel Game), then let's trade: toss in your 2-cents on GTR-1861 talk to make a case that the current name is reasonable enough, and to quit hounding the Ghost, and I'll be happy to lend a hand on the CS Army page you are composing. The Ghost is a man of his word. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a member of the ACW task force, and I only chime in the areas that would affect my editing, so my views might not count for much. That is why I haven't commented on this, or on the Romney Exp. page and such, as I'm much newer to this. That being said, I'll look into sources about the GTR '61 around me in upper Yankville here, and with an informed opinion add those 2 cents in. Allow me some time to research, as I hadn't done much thinking about the page. Deal, good sir.
Here's another thought for now: if the History Channel groups those activities under that name, then I bet it was put out on DVDs with the name (& describing many of those events) by them as well. That I believe would aid you in keeping the article title, and perhaps some articles in the several CW magazines about the raid too, if they give that title also. Let me sniff around a bit! Kresock (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In the video game version of this raid, you (the Confederate player) actually have gatling guns on said trains and mow down Union soldiers as you roll down the tracks. Now THAT would have made the newspapers! The27thmaine (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(Guess I should read up about canvassing on WP; hadn't run into that before!) My thought was that policy is to name articles by their most popular, published, or best known name. So if you wanted support for the current name by policy, the published accounts/DVDs & such named 'Great Train Raid of 1861' would help. I could not find a listing on the HC site for GTR '61, but I sent in an email request about such an offering if it exists. As far as online there's a buttload of links to the game, and here's some other links I found so far that use that naming: link 1 link 2 link 3 link 4 link 5. I wouldn't be suprised if they got labeled as 'southern tourism' sites or something. The raid does not appear in any of the books I own, not even in Captain William P. Snow's one from 1867!
My next step is the library, and I'll let you know what I find there. Based on what I've seen so far though, this isn't enough to support the current name of the page, or even the raid taking place at all! You might be better off writing a book on it instead of here perhaps. I'll get back to you. Kresock (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ghost: Bad news chief, no luck at the library and no response from History Channel site. I'm thinking semi-modern sources on this raid (if it happened) is only to be found in your neck of the woods. Bits do show up in Henderson's old bio in the chapter on Harper's Ferry, which are discounted in the newer work mentioned in the article. Doesn't seem to matter now, as the name change was done anyway, and any input from me on this subject seemed to be discounted beforehand. Don't hesitate asking me for anything else. Kresock (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil War interest

Hi!

I have started some discussion about the neutrality of the civil war article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Civil_War#To_Sum_Up_Answers_to_Questions_About_Misunderstandings_-_Respond_here_with_comments

Thought you might be interested.

98.246.34.148 (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Cedwyn

Stop the name calling; you're not doing yourself any favors

Smart people often disagree. It's one of the difficulties in taking on the mantle of adulthood that disagreements between otherwise trusted individuals need priority and perspective. In Wikipedia, participants agree to work by the rules, ignore the rules when necessary, but ultimately just get along with other participants. The conflict resolution structure is based on assessing agreement. I would like to second Berean Hunter's suggestion that you collect all your spite and anger, and delete it en-masse from the pedia. I have not been your enemy here, but this constant tar-brushing is past irritating--it's affecting the work of others on the project. In an encyclopedic setting, rabid partisanship can be useful for provoking thought and stimulating interest in pagespace, but let's face it: inherent bias doesn't and can't complete encyclopedic pagespace because bias represents an unbalancing force. A Featured-class wikipedia page must have been cleansed of bias during the editing process (otherwise it wouldn't have achieved FA status). Grayghost01, I call on you to stop the name calling and the labeling. You've presented your biases and incivility sufficiently. (Reposted from talk) BusterD (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What is this in regard to? Grayghost01 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of commissioned officers of the Confederate States Marine Corps

Hi,

in my list about the active commissioned officers of the United States Marine Corps in 1860, there are different columns with:

a.) State where born

b.) State from which appointed

c.) State of which a citizen


For me (a non-English native language European) only the first one (State where born) makes sense. What is the background/meaning of the other phrases (State from which appointed) & (State of which a citizen)


I'm doing right now a file of all commissioned officers of Confederate States Marine Corps. (should be finished before X-Mas)

I will sort them by the C.S.M.C. rank, than if more than one name have the same rank, I can sort them by

a.) Date of entry into the service

or

b.) Date of commission


What is the difference between them??

Which date shall I use for the second sorting??



Regards Michi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.117.182.63 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Michi; In response to your first questions, many people outside of the United States do not realize that there is no such thing as a "United States citizen" legally in this country. We are all citizens of the state in which we are born or reside. There is a fluidness in the way in which citizens in these United States can move about. But a person's rights and what is lawful varies from state to state. Thus, there is no uniform code of law, and one cannot transfer their rights from one state to another. Prior to our "American Civil War", much stronger feelings and interpretations existed about our state citizenships, and people really considered their state to be their country. So the state from which appointed and the state of which one was a citizen was sometimes indicated in accordance with one's residence, which may have been different from the state of birth. If you were born in Illinois, but resided in Virginia, you may have been appointed from Virginia, and possibly a citizen of Virginia. Even today in the U.S. military officers are appointed from their individual states, and their state of residency is where their citizenship lies. Their birth state may be different. Thus, in the U.S., citizenship today is changed automatically by residence, and everyone in the military must list a "home of record" to whom they owe their allegiance and tax. The date of entry into the service is what I would use for your second sorting. Grayghost01 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Solicitation for help on Portal:American Civil War

I could understand why you may not feel kindly toward this editor at the moment, but I'd like to invite you to bring your energy to bear in an affirmative way. I maintain the P:ACW, and have recently archived much of my material, clearing space for more recent material. Unlike most modern portals, the P:ACW uses a dynamic queue, and with the singular exception of the calendar, page links appear for a designated time period, never to repeat (much like the main page). The portal has been Featured for almost a year, and it's essential I keep important, fresh, stylish material loaded in the portal for display. Right now I could use some help with Portal:American Civil War/Selected biography. I usually use a rhythm North, South, Not Applicable; that is a Northern military figure, then a Southern military figure, then an historical figure not necessarily associated with the military of either side (in order to remind the reader that the war had non-military notables). If you wanted to alter the rhythm or frontload the queue with southerners, it would probably balance my inherent mild bias toward the victor (my cavalry trooper great-great grandpa turns in his Texas grave when I admit such). BusterD (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BusterD, why did you bust my chops on my beloved Ashby's Gap page, which I have gingerly nursed, adding the photo you see thereupon, and adding the history and so forth? I drive through this beloved gap daily, and have picked up many Appalachian Trail hitch-hikers, taking them to the AT at the peak, where they take the hike past the old presidential digs at Mount Weather. I debated deleting the abhorrent "Hooker" name all together and just refer to the Union Army, but this would be so Neo-Confederate, would it not? While thousands of men were baptized in the rivers of Virginia in the great Second Corps and ANV revival of 1863 ... Hooker left his lasting legacy of debauchery and vileness by his very name, a most appropriate legacy to have, so typical of the crudity that swept down upon us. (Pardon, while I keep up the image of the Gray Ghost, who is truly as reconstructed as Colonel Mosby was). So, being the sole outnumbered-like-Lee Neo-Confederate and supposed Lost Cause Loser of the ACW, I'd be more than happy to help. And as a side note, I have ZERO hard feelings toward anyone, toward you, or any of the rest of the secret-note-passing crowd. Like Luke, I am here to balance the Force, to say that the ACW has two views needing equal historical attention, and to be the Iron which sharpens Iron. I'll review the aforementioned situation, and be glad to help in your efforts. If I stumble along the way, I am not vandalizing I say, as I steer the portal clear of Neo-Yankism. Good day. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I share your love of the winding and historic trails in the northernmost counties of the great Commonwealth of Virginia, though I have far less experience in their passage; a southernmost county of the commonwealth birthed my great-great-great grandfather by direct male line. To answer your question as to why I "bust your chops" over it, this edit and this edit both use modern rank abbreviation variants as noticed by another editor on ACW TF talk. I'd like to find ways we can cooperate as opposed to differ; the portal could certainly use new blood. Colonel Bedford has helped a lot with DYKs, but the calendar and other display areas could use some wikilove. If you haven't ever played with a portal, it's not complicated. The Portal:American Revolutionary War could also use some attention; it hasn't reached Featured Portal status, but has all the essentials. If you have a Featured page ambition, this is an arena where your seemingly limitless energy can accomplish much. Once you've worked with other portals, you could develop a Confederate States of America portal. There's zero reason I can think of one shouldn't exist. It might be a fascinating link to American culture. BusterD (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The more I think of it, the fewer reasons why that shouldn't happen. It wouldn't be a war-related portal, but more of a government and society portal, though military figures would by nature dominate a war-torn country's history. There's a featured topic, Confederate government of Kentucky, which is fascinating and extremely well-done, upon which to base articles and gather links and categories. I thought my next portal was going to be Portal:Civil wars, but P:CSA would be a very cool construction, and might draw pageviews to articles covering the Confederacy. Everybody's happy. You'd have to work your ass off. BusterD (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BusterD, I'll ponder upon the Portal-CSA proposal. If I can swing the time, I also agree its a good idea. There don't seem to be many Neo-Confederates like myself lurking around, so it'd be nice to get some more help in that arena. On the rank abbreviation issue, this is yet another primrose path I've been suckered into on the Island. My god, no one keeps using an abbreviated rank in a prose written article. Yet all these articles do. The style is terrible. Rank abbreviations are for the person themselves to use on their calling card, or in correspondence perhaps. I have made the decision that I will not use abbreviations at all, and spell out the first go, and drop thereafter. This also solves my hatred for the Army abbreviations (LTG, COL, etc) that we in the USMC have long rolled our eyes at. I have suggested this start: WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force/ranks back on the Island page. It needs enlisted ranks added, but it's an improvement upon Hal's person page thing buried in his notes. I'll heave to on the bios you mention above. Finally, your notes on the American Revolution are interesting. I have more knowledge there than the WBTS. All Southern of course. After all we won that darn war, for which the Yanks never sent even a thank you note. In fact New England tried to secede during the War of 1812, those two-faced secession-denying b-stards.Grayghost01 (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I found myself reading some old New England newspapers during research this last week and discovered that just after the NYC draft riots immediately following the Battle of Gettysburg, some dissidents in Greenfield, Massachusetts burned down the Cheapside bridge spanning the Deerfield River. So don't count out the old Democrats of west Massachusetts, either. Interesting how the worm turns. BusterD (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As to abbreviations, I'm with you. BusterD (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Work with me a bit on P:ACW. If you could get Portal:American Revolutionary War to FP status, I'd take that as a personal favor; it was started as an outline by someone beloved inside the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history community. The fellow happens to be from Saint Petersburg, but I think the south side. Sorry for the overt smiley faces, but Kirill is legend. BusterD (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Buster,D: In the link you gave above to your love notes with Gwen Gale, she says this:

  • As an uninvolved admin I can say straightforwardly, the only way to handle historical ranks and titles is to write them as given in the reliable sources, save that periods can almost always be left off.

HOLY TOLEDO!! That is EXACTLY the format I suggested with using the "OLD STYLE" USMC abbreviations, which have no periods, and my biggest gripe was all these periods. Lose the periods. And here the Hurricane lady says drop the periods. Furthermore, the ACW "style" deleted all the historical HYPHENS which is the way to write them AS GIVEN. For crying out loud. And she made some other point about translating into foreign languages. Do you want the ACW to translate into foreign languages? Then I HIGHLY SUSPECT that the Nato-Code approved rank abbreviations (LTG, COL, LCDR, CDR) do that. Geez. So either way, old style or NATO CODE ranks, neither is what ACW is using. Heck I made tables of suggested rank styles, pointed out foreign use and equivalencies, and on and on. Then when 2 or 3 folks slap down some "support" the Fly Lord has spoken. I really think an ACW leader needs to get a grip on spelling and use of ranks such that it is consistent with readability and usability across the larger Wikipedia area. If there is some universal Wikipedia style, I have YET to see anyone point it out. So it seems to me she is suggeting MG (new universal) or Maj-Gen (historical with hyphens and no periods) and not Maj. Gen. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think of Gwen as more sister than paramour, though I'll admit some affection and pride, mostly how she proved me wrong after I opposed (and likely derailed) her first run for administrator. She has proven herself the way you'd want your sister to do--she's a stand up gal who takes no crap, but has been around enough to appreciate her own beauty. She's even better as an admin than as an editor and that's a compliment of the highest order from me. Ahem.
On the subject of reliable sources, I'm sitting here with Boatner's The Civil War Dictionary, certainly a reliable source, and I'm seeing a wide range of usages, all including periods. In Bruce Catton's legendary The Golden Book of the Civil War, I see that Catton avoids unnecessary use of ranks, spells them completely when used, and refrains from differentiating between grades of general (though that book was targeted at adolescents). Catton uses the same literary tactic in his three volume history of the Army of the Potomac. In Douglas Southall Freeman's Pulitzer Prize winning Lee's Lieutenants, the author uses Gen., Col., Capt., and Lt. Col. all in the first twenty five pages. I have before me Allan Millett's wonderful Semper Fidelis: The History of the United States Marine Corps. He uses Dr. (of course), but during the narrative only starts working the newer all caps ackronyms into text in the last two chapters. In his references, he uses Col. Maj. R.Adm. Flag Off. and so on. I've got Eisenhower's So Far From God: The U.S. War with Mexico. He avoids using any abbreviations. So what reliable sources do you mean? BusterD (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

BusterD: when I read hyphenated abbreviations, I'm talking about Henderson, Hotchkiss and others, as well as original letters and correspondence. During the Civil War, and for years afterwards they hyphenated all General ranks. Secondly, the Confederates had one basic rank of General, which was stratified. It is not EXACTLY like the O-10, O-11, etc system you see today. A "Major-General" wore the same insignia, and was merely a "ranking" general to out-command the other Brigadiers. So you have to understand a great deal of the history of ranks to really grasp the ACW-era. A Navy "Lieutenant Commander" in the USN, was merely a Lieutenant that was "commanding" something, not a rank per se. But it was codified during the war, when the Navy aligned itself to the Army. So, in ACW era documentation, there is wide variety, but you would typically see: Brigadier-General and Brig.-Gen. Most newer books get rid of all that, and streamline it. The U.S. military decided decades ago to get rid of the periods, because they take up space, confuse the ends of sentences, and are not good for message traffic, and etc. It sounds like Gwen Gale is saying the same issue still exists. Thus I suspect that Wiki should, in its own best interest, use the universal NATO-approved abbreviations of LTG, BG, RDML, RADM, CAPT, CPT and so on. See, a CPT is an O-3 and a CAPT is an O-6. There is no longer any confustion of an Army Captain with a Navy Captain in their ingenious system. They've worked it all out, and with all the allies, unlike Wiki. Grayghost01 (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember to check Archives and previously viewed 2008 biographies (Alexander was selected bio 34) this year, before you get too far into formatting. That's what an entry should look like, however. Thanks for participating. The portal is where I can show off folks' fancy work in public. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Your selected bio entry number 7 is sweet! Exactly the kind of thing I'd fail to recognize. Keep doing that sort of off the beaten path thing, but let's utilize the biography links on the Template:American Civil War as a basic list of essential figures. Others are welcome, but the list on the template is crucial to use, since the list has weathered a thousand paper cuts already. Try to remember, north, south, noncombatant (or in your case, south, north, noncombatant). BusterD public (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Great essay

Thank you for your excellent and well-researched essay on WBTS revisionism. I stumbled onto it from your comment on Talk:John S. Mosby about the terminology of partisan v. commando. Cmadler (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A favour

Acw bs 7e.png

If you ever come back, could you modify this barnstar for me? I need something for the Revolution and War of 1812, and this graphic, but with the Union Jack repalcing the Southern Cross, would be great. Maybe a tri-cornered hat on top of one version and a stylized number 1812 on top of the other. And hey, if you want to complain abput how you were treated, just email me.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Lawsofthenavy.jpg

The picture of "Laws of the Navy" downloaded on 26 Nov 2008 may be a violation of copyright. This is a plate published in 1918, and the author (Ronald Hopwood) was still writing in 1940 (witness his poems on Dunkirk and the Graf Spee), so it cannot be PD yet. The fact it was copied by a US serviceman does not make it PD, and it is therefore a copyright violation. The template made rather a mess of your talk page, which I've tidied up. The guidance it leaves is listed here:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Lawsofthenavy.jpg and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Lawsofthenavy.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Lawsofthenavy.jpg.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but copyright is important. Yours, Shem (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity

I'm going to be at the Ball's Bluff battlefield this next weekend helping the battlefield guides and other volunteers clean the park up for the season. You available? I'll buy lunch. BusterD (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Very happy to see your datestamp. Glad to know you're well. Bravo Zulu. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

PUI, procedural listing

Hi. I wanted to let you know that File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg had been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 May 9 for evaluation. Since that forum does not evaluate images, I have relocated the listing to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 17. I see that you had left a note to the original tagger. If you have opportunity, please help clarify the matter at the PUI listing. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Please see my reply to your comments on my talk page (and if I seem a little short, it's pressure of time rather than anything else). Your, Shem (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I got it wrong with File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Yours, Shem (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Arguably, when the US Navy takes a photo of its own book, and publishes it on its own dot-MIL website, it is generally a foregone conclusion that this is material in the public domain. The government works for the people, and cannot copywright its materials. But a double check of that was perhaps in order? Grayghost01 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Under to caption is is listed as the homestead of Joseph KEELER but in looking at the note for the images it's listed as WHEELER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.56.152 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

Henry Allingham in 1916.jpg

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on CSS Alabama , and 3 questions

Hello GG01, I have translated CSS Shenandoah into french , & am now doing the same with CSS Alabama : such an amount of gallantry appeals to us latin people, as it indeed did at our grand-parents' time (see our great Jules Verne books, which fed our youth...) . Thanks a lot for your work .

I have just 2 questions about CSS Alabama  : I°/ Maybe there is an error about the date of catching 3 last whalers around Azores Islands ( 1862 or 63 ? ) 2°/ I couln't find the North Island where the "Winged Racer" was burned during the Indian Ocean Raid : since you mention East India, I infer that's Andaman North Island ? There are several North Island about there (Torres Straits , Western Australia etc...) .

Another thing : many english spoken iconography (even 100 years old or more...) don't appear on our WP fr. ( see my article on CSS Shanandoah for example : it's a pity we cannot have the sketch of his boat by the captain , etc...) : couldn't & shouldn't something be done about that ?

& the stiff-necked observations about your style on the discussion pages are properly ROL for us : you should see the style of some articles on WPspanish (I went there when writing about Commodore Anson) - or the article (in french) about Poulo Condor  !! T.y. , Arapaima (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, and sorry for my delay. Here is my account of the WINGED RACER:
"November 8, 1863 - The ALABAMA gets underway for the Strait of Sunda, sailing by Keyser Island. At 10:30am, Semmes puts the ALABAMA under steam with sail, passing the islands of Beezee Sowbooks. At 1:00pm, the ALABAMA enters the Strait of Sunda and at 2:00pm, leaves the Strait, passing to the west of Thwart-the-Way Island close to Stroom Rock, sighting the town and garrison of Anger, not seeing the U.S.S. WYOMING. In fact, the Strait is unguarded by the enemy. During a rain squall, the ALABAMA chases and captures the WINGED RACER of New York with no WYOMING to protect her, as the RACER had lingered behind a few days. Tonight, the ALABAMA anchors alongside the RACER after moving her near North Island to get necessary supplies off her."
Thus this is in the Sunda Strait between Sumatra and Java. "Thwart-the-Way" Island is modern Sangiang island. "North" Island I can only guess at, and it must be one of the other islands in that strait, likley on the north side. Hope that helps ... and we stiff-necked Southern People of the former Confederate States thank Spain, Brazil and all Iberian peoples for their help and support in our late efforts. Yankees in our own country are very intolerant of direct speech. Grayghost01 (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RmnyExped.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:RmnyExped.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ohioartdude2 (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a large crock of baloney. I obtained permission directly from the artist, who was glad to donate a jpg of his artwork to wiki. I gave all the information necessary at the time of posting. Now, later, rules, methods and etc are changed retroactively. This is an example of the bad part of Wiki.Grayghost01 (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

location of old Goose Creek Bridge

hello, Gray Ghost.

when you get a minute, can you double-check which county the old Goose Creek bridge is in?

i'm pretty sure it's in Loudoun County by a couple hundred yards, so i changed 2 of your picture captions.

thanks.

kenatipo.

centreville, VA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenatipo (talkcontribs) 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. The county line runs just in-between the old and new Goose Creek bridge's. I'd say the old one is about 100 yards inside Loudoun County.Grayghost01 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gray Ghost. Kenatipo (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members

Editorial

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced;
Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections

Articles

Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content

Members

July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy

Editorial

Opportunities for new military history articles

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants

Editorial

In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations

To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies talk 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Bugle.png

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010)
Front page
Project news
Articles
Members
Editorial
Project news

The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals

Articles

A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles

Members

Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)

Editorial

In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about an image

I noticed you hadnt been on in a few months but I thought I would give a shout anyway. I am resurrecting Wikiproject United States and I heard a rumor you were good with making images. I would like to make a banner image for use on the wikiproject (akin to the one used on WPMILHIST) but since I am graphically challenged I was hoping you might be willing to help. Thanks in advance for the consideration. --Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: the Great Train Raid, please check out my web site, www.csa-railroads.com. You will find 100 transcribed documents relating to this even, including the CS Army documents relating to the engines, newspaper articles mentioning the engines, etc. You will also find a bio of Sharp, with links to several dozen documents related to the CS Locomotive Shop --- in RALEIGH, not Company Shops. I would be glad to help you with any rewriting of these two stories. confederaterrs@aol.com 98.24.17.98 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Flag of the United States.svg

Hello, Grayghost01/Archive 1! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

The Bugle.png




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Grayghost01/WBTS Revisionism

I'm just getting started on your essay, and I've got a question. You say,

  • Generally all the southern states felt there was a constitutional argument for secession . . . slavery, good or bad, was constitutional (I agree with all this), and,
  • Since the North didn't bother to amend the constitution on this issue until much later, it cannot be logically used in defence of the North for a cause of war (I'm still with you here.) but then you write
  • they saw the North as reneging on the constitution. In what way? Slavery was still legal and being practiced when Lincoln took the oath of office, and he took no steps to end slavery until after secession. How did the North trigger secession by violating the Constitution? 98.82.193.135 (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

The Bugle.png
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

The Bugle.png
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

The Bugle.png

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You may want to chime in on this...

Hello -

I'm running out of bullets. Your file is nominated for deletion. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lawsofthenavy.jpg I uploaded the 3 other plates, and that triggered the review. I've made the arguments I can, and I've asked for help from the World Fleet Forum. Another voice would be a help, maybe. Thanks JMOprof (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The question has arisen. Where did you find this fact: "The 'Laws of the Navy', written by Rear Admiral Hopwood while on duty in the United States Navy"? given in your upload. It may be germane. JMOprof (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the projectwhat coordinators do) 09:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Preston

Hi ! You add this ref[1], "Preston p.14-14", but i can find the book in the bibliography. Can you help me ? :))--Midnight bird (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Confederate States of America article/Texas v. White

I just wanted to say I appreciate the remarks you have made concerning how pointless it is to talk to some editors about Lincoln and their pro-northern biases which will not allow for any other intrusions...particularly Rjensen and NorthShore. I found this out first-hand very recently in an on-going dispute over the content of the SCOTUS decision of Texas v. White. If you ever have the chance and/or inclination, you can review the edit history on the "Confederate States of America" main page.

It was just not acceptable -- seemingly even a sacred-cow -- to them, that another viewpoint (as in balance and neutrality) would be allowed. In this case, to wit, that it was a bond issue before the court, not secession per se(thus the secession issue was only dicta by a Lincoln packed Court), and that it was a retroactive ruling in any case. I made several attempts to -- in the spirit of good will and compromise -- to change certain passages and take out certain sources.

But all was for naught; there was never any reciprocation on their part. In fact, anything that went against their adamant belief in "winners history" would not be permitted to remain. And sometimes it went to the point of ad-absurdum in the attempt to censor/eliminate. Such as claiming some sources were "non-scholarly" or "un-supported"...when in actuality, my final edit was supported by a balanced article from a Cornell law professor whose credentials are indisputable, and from the dissenting opinion itself! Oh well, again, if you like, please look the edit history over. Meanwhile, I will just repeat, I definitely appreciate and agree with your analysis of McPherson's work, and the observation that some editors (and all too many historians, professors, and writers) are absolutely opposed to anything that remotely threatens their life-long -- almost religious -- faith, that Lincoln was the patron saint of U.S. history, and that almost no other issue than slavery was involved. TexasReb (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Sonofthsouth-0001.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sonofthsouth-0001.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

50k Challenge poster.jpg You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)