User talk:Hlj/archive2007

Hampton Roads

Dear Hal: Thanks for the info about the roads in Hampton Roads. BTW, I used your Historic Triangle map for the Jamestown, Virginia article. We are gearing up for Jamestown 2007 here. Mark Vaoverland 00:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

You have me stumped. Vaoverland 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

Of course. It is why have Lee-Jackson Day in Virginia at this time of year. Mark Vaoverland 13:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Clem

Hi, I wrote the John Clem article. I wasn't sure how to clean it up after another editor added a third picture. You did a fine job, much thanks. Joegoodfriend 05:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement between Franz Sigel & Battle of Carthage articles

In that you were the original author of the Franz Sigel article, and thus the source for the numbers, please see the Talk:Franz Sigel about a major discrepency between it and the Battle of Carthage article. Perhaps you can shed some insight into this. 207.69.137.202 05:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville Campaign

Hey, I was looking through Special:Newpages and I happened to drop by this great article you just made. I just wanted to let you know that I plan to nominate it for DYK, and you might see it on the Main Page in a few days! =) See T:DYKT where I will post the DYK suggestion, and you can comment there if you want to reword it or change it. Thanks, and tell me when you finish the whole article. Nishkid 64 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the categorization, and I had figured you were almost done with the article. There is a 5-day period in which DYK's are candidates for the Main Page, so if you finish within five days, we can get it onto the Main Page. Nishkid 64 18:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs are just placed on the DYK suggestions page, and may be reviewed by one or two editors. I had initially figured you were almost done with the article, and that's why I was planning to nominate it. For DYK, the article is not selected immediately. It is selected 5 (sometimes, 6) days after the article has been created. Nishkid 64 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in your edit summary that you said "Done". Does that mean you're done with the article writing? I noticed you said you would create a map for the article, but even without it, it's still a complete article. I'd really like to see this on DYK. It's quite an interesting read. =) Nishkid 64 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I think it's a good new article. Most DYK articles are crappy, so it's kind of refreshing and exciting to see a potential DYK that is of high interest that I can put up on the Main Page. Nishkid 64 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Knoxville Campaign, was selected for DYK!

On January 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Knoxville Campaign, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark in Historic Triangle

Thanks for the teaser about Lee's birthday. They ran a local item in news here with a painting of him at age 24 when he was at Fort Monroe. Wow, what a different image. I have been really busy working on Jamestown and related articles. Hope you are well. Mark Vaoverland 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting comments by banned users

Don't do this, or you will be blocked. You do not trump Jimbo Wales. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Gettysburg

Dear HIj,

    Your map of the Batttle of Gettysburg is cool. Do the Union/Confederate paths on the map have roads that corresponding them? For example, does one of the paths correspond with todays U.S. 15 from Frederick to Gettysburg?

Thanks, Brent Catoctin Center for Regional Studies Non-Profit Organization —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacknife722 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gettysburg edits

Howdy!

I salute your zeal in working to keep some very good articles (the Gettysburg articles) pristine, but I would like to comment on the changes I tried to make that you reverted.

1)Concerning Gen. Schimmelfennig, I realize he was already linked, but that particular paragraph finally had something interesting to say about him, and that was the only time while reading the article that I felt any interest in reading more about him, and experienced what I considered to be a typical user's annoyance in having to scroll back up to hunt for the linked version of his name. I understand that it is silly to link every instance of any name, but in this case I would argue that this link fits into this particular paragraph considering its content.

2)Concerning the header about Longsteet's delay during the Second Day, I felt it deserves its own heading because it was more than just troop movement, it was a notable development of the battle. It remains notable to me, even as familiar as I am with the battle, that Longsteet's attack didn't happen until 4 in the afternoon.

3)Finally, concerning the red link for Charles E. Hazlett, I thought it was a general rule of thumb to remove red links. But I am still fairly new to editing Wikipedia, and not totally familiar with the policies, so I don't know.

Anyway, thanks for your time. --Steve

--SECurtisTX | talk 00:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I process many many dozens of edits per day, so I often do things quickly. More than 95% of the time, reverts I do aren't questioned, so I tend to barrel ahead (particularly in those cases when it's an anonymous user). I'm happy to discuss or negotiate with interested parties, however.

1. OK, but remove the second link to him and the style is not to include the rank in the link.

2. I don't feel really strongly about this one, although I am sensitive to Lost Causers blaming JL for GB, so I wouldn't have made that choice to highlight him. The style is use lowercase on words after the first.

3. No, the RoT is that redlinks encourage people to write new articles. We try not to go overboard, but almost all prominent people of the ACW get linked in our articles.

Happy editing. Hal Jespersen 01:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Thanks for the response and the advice. :) --SECurtisTX | talk 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

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

Delivered by grafikbot 10:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Casualty - Battle of Malvern Hill

"Mark H. Roberts, son of Thos. and Sarah Roberts, was born 5th mo. 14th 1840." "Mark H. Roberts, son of Thos. and Sarah Roberts, was instantly killed by a shell at the battle of Malvern Hills, VA July 1st, 1862 aged 22years, 1 month, 14 days."

Roberts Family Bible

File:Mark Roberts-DOB.jpg File:Mark Roberts-DOD.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.144.254 (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Op cit and the Battle of Mill Springs

I could not make the elaborate ref bits to work. So I did the third (my second) as an Op cit. You removed this. I request that you fix this. There are seven volumes and associated numbers of The Zollie Tree, running back for years. You have degraded the citation. --MarkTwainOnIce 06:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chancellorsville

Would like to append a link to a book (The Campaign of Chancellorsville by Theodore A. Dodge-Gutenberg Press)by Theodore A. Dodge to your article. Mr Dodge was a contemporary of the times and was actually serving at the time Chancellorsville occurred. His version of what occurred and why differs from the article published and offers a different perspective on the battle and the reason it played out as it did.

Oldegrog

You did not leave a link for me to reply, so I will do it here. You are welcome to add a properly (i.e., consistently) formatted entry to a "Further reading" section after "Notes." If you choose to make substantive changes to the article based on that as a reference, you should put it into the "References" section. Hal Jespersen 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Fort Fisher

Thanks for the tip. I'll probably tackle it too when I'm feeling daring. You're right, it looks a little scary. Also, I just now realized you had messaged me a few weeks ago on Antietam. Thanks for the feedback! Civil Engineer III 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U S Grant Article

The section on Civil War Western Theatre appears to be vandalised. Gibberish is inserted/overwritten in the first paragraph block. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.21.40.253 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Seems to be OK now. Lots of people monitor that article. Hal Jespersen 01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shiloh

I'd like to work on bringing that article up to Class A standards. You seem to have put in lots of work on it. I'd like to help. Do you have suggestions on what should be done to improve it? Tirronan 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee

Hey Hlj - Why did you revert to an even earlier version of the article? Cutting out that information warrants an explanation, I think. Thanks, Figma 15:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for checking it out and fixing it. Keep on blizzarding! Figma 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OLD BALDY

My name is Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr and I am the Founder and President of the USS UNITED STATES Foundation. Before my involvement with the USS UNITED STATES,some time during the mid 1980's, I visited Gettysburg and purchased a souvenier book which had a line about Old Baldy being in Philadelphia.I made a few phone calls and found a Mr. Cavenough of the GAR Camp 200 on Church Street. When I mentioned the head and forehooves, that were made into ink wells, of Old Baldy he replied,"That old thing? Yeah, we have it up in the attic". I said I would like to see it and take pictures. He was kind enough to bring it down and put all three pieces up on the wall. I was amazed, horrified, and sad all at the same time. The thought came into my mind that Baldy should have had all his remains buried together with honors. I couldn't see him but one more time after he was restored.

I heard that both Old Baldy and Traveller (Lee's horse) both outlived the Generals. I thought they were also wounded five times. The plaquard that mounted the head of Old Baldy had listed all the battles he was wounded.

I would like to hear your feedback. Contact me at USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

I have the honor to be at your service. Edward C. Zimmerman, Jr. Founder & President USS UNITED STATES Foundation a non-profit tax exempt organization —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.193.3.74 (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Third Battle of Winchester

HLJ: There is no literature referring to a "Battle of Opequon" save some esoteric references or Union offical records. The Body of Literature call this the Third Battle of Winchester. NPS has no park, signage or effort in regards to Winchester-III. It is confusing for readers to see the body of books and literature, and then see an entirely different title in Wikipedia. "Battle of Opequon" is strictly an alternative name for a very small, or practically non-existent subset of CW historians and enthusiasts. Local signage and museums in Winchester, VA, where I am a resident, refer to this battle by it's name: Third Battle of Winchester, and it is known by it's part in the series of battles there.

George B. McClellan

Hi. I recently nominated McClellan as a Good Article Candidate, and it easily passed. I actually think that this could potentially be a Featured Article Candidate, so I was wondering if you would allow me to create a peer review (or you can create it) to see what work still needs to be done/if work needs to be done. You can certainly submit it to WP:FAC afterwards, as I think it would pass.--Wizardman 14:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll avoid peer review. If I do decide to nominate anything as a featured article though I'll let you know. (or if it's a good article I'll just rate it myself to avoid said visibility)--Wizardman 16:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your vandalization of article Battle of Brandy Station

Please stop vandalizing the article Battle of Brandy Station. Your refusal to specifically source disputed facts, and simple reversions of deletions of unsourced and irrelevant material, constitutes vandalism and will be treated as such if you persist, including reporting to administrators. (I should point out that one error you have made is verifying a fact by citing another wikipedia article, which is circular as that article itself would need to be verified and may have been edited by you to support some unverified statement.) Please also stop treating the article as if you "own" it, deciding for yourself what belongs in the article and what does not. I would suggest that you set up a blog if you do not like articles to which you have contrubuted being edited. That applies equally to users who have drafted "300 articles over three years," as you indicated in your comment you left on my talk page. In fact, it should apply even more to them, as they should know better. Larry Dunn 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Battle of Brandy Station

I'll try to keep an eye on this situation. Glad to try to help. WP admin. Mark Vaoverland 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki

I have appreciated your efforts in writing the Civil War articles. I am fairly new to the study of the American Civil War and have been spending most of my reading time lately with books on the subject. I have no new insight of my own, but have some small skill in condensing and summarizing. I sometimes see articles in which I have additional information gleaned from my reading, but wonder if adding extraneous information, sited though it may be, would muddy the waters. I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

BB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babullock (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Casualties of 2nd Winchester

Multiple sources, included those footnoted on this article, and the Official Records, give the total Union casualty count to be in the vicinity of mid to upper 4,000's. The casualty count, particularly captured, should reflect the Official Record of LtGen Ewell, who had the best figure on his captured quantity. The Union records of Milroy from this battle are notorious for their inaccuracy, especially given his dodging blame at his subsequent Court of Inquiry.

Thus, is Wikipedia more interested in presenting the best known historical facts ... or is it more interested in low-ball figures from non-official sources?

If there is a dispute by Milroy and Union sympathizers, let let multiple casualty counts be displayed in a table with their sources, as in the Battle of Wildnerness page.

Otherwise, there is much work to do to fix the various Wikipedia pages mauling of historical facts on the various Battles of Winchester, including this one. The task will be endless, if every correction posted stemming from majority-sources, official records and prevailing conclusions of local Winchester Historians is overturned by unexplainable actions from other moderators.

Can the history academiacians of Winchester chime in on their local history in Wikipedia or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grayghost01 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2nd Winchester Reports, example

FOOTNOTE FROM PAGE: OR Series 1, Vol XXVII by LtGen Ewell: The fruits of this victory were 23 pieces of artillery (nearly all rifled), 4,000 prisoners, 300 loaded wagons, more than 300 horses, and quite a large amount of commissary and quartermaster's stores.

FOOTNOTE FROM PAGE: Report from MajGen E. Johnson: The substantial results of the engagement were from 2,300 to 2,500 prisoners and about 175 horses, with arms and equipments in proportion, Steuart's brigade capturing about 900, the Stonewall Brigade about 900, and Nicholl's brigade the remainder. Eleven stand of colors were captured, of which the Stonewall Brigade captured six, Steuart's brigade four, and the Louisiana one.

(NOTE: Johnson speaks only of the casualties his Division took, not Early's Division)

FOOTNOTE FROM PAGE: Historynet.com article by Wells: The Confederates had captured 3,358 prisoners, four 20-pounder Parrott guns, 17 3-inch guns and two 24-pounder howitzers.

FOOTNOTE FROM PAGE: Paths of the Civil War . com article: Casualties: 4,709 total (US 4,443; CS 266)

So, here we see that given the four references for the article on 2nd Battle of Winchester, the official records are ignored, and the low-ball count by the Wells article, with un-named sources, is used. More authoritative sources are availabe as well, from the University of Virginia series books, but, alas, even they would likely be deleted in favor of the low-ball stuff.

This is an example of why this Wikipedia article on 2nd Winchester is posted on our humor-board. Are the moderators of this article open to quality sourcing and referencing ... or shall we fix up this page over time to meet better quality history-documenting methodology?

Grayghost01 05:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Winchester

I have included a new external link the Official Records summary table of casualties from the 8th Army Corp, which give 4,443 casualties total, of which 4,000 are missing/captured. Amazingly, and this would imply these army new basic math and addition, LtGen also reported in his report that he had captured a total of exactly 4,000 prisoners.

I attribute this match in the records due to the fact that each of the authors of the reports were actually there.

Therefore the page needs to carry, and has been modified to show these numbers. Not surprisingly these numbers are given in a number of secondary sources and books on this battle. Grayghost01 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response on 2nd Winch

Hal, Please review the 2nd Winchester Battle page, and the changes I've made. In regards to the casualties, the OR for both Confederate and Union coincide. What makes the "fluff" come into this battle was the hot-air and baloney Milroy spewed after the battle, trying to make himself look good during his arrest and subsequent Court of Inquiry. But both armies put the captured & missing for Milroy at 4,000. One must always give the strongest weight of evidence to the original authors, and consider their track record on reporting. Notice that the 8th Army Corps did an independent assessment of the casualties. But the bottom line is that we need to use the corroborating Confederate and Union OR reports, ESPECIALLY since they coincide so well, which is powerful evidence.

I added a link to the Union OOB, and added the commanders names, where I knew them off the top of my head. I fixed some mistakes on the confederate OOB.

I started a new section for the Court of Inquiry, and this deserves a good write up, which I will add at some point.

The main battle description, and preliminary description is weak, and needs dressing, which I will get to.

Finally, this page deserves two more sections: One on it's role in the Gettysburg campaign. The second is on the Milroy Occupation, which may possibly deserve it's own page entirely. Extensive crimes and Civil Rights violations by the U.S. Army in Winchester during this occupation make up volumes ... volumes ... of documentation. I included one fun reference to the new Chase/Lee diaries book. The many women diarists in Winchester are referred to as the Devil Diarists, and perhaps that can be in a section or page with the Milroy Occupation.

In Milroy's defense, and I previously corrected this article on this point, he had convinced Schenck to let him stay in Winchester, until further orders .... which never came because the Confederates cut the telegram line into Winchester. So Milroy disobeyed no orders, like the article originally said. Grayghost01

Roads and Federals

The current and rather quaint name of the "sunken road" (which isn't a sunken road...) isn't relevant to an account of the battle. It sticks out of the text and sounds like something a tour guide would say. And do keep in mind that the article is supposed to be reasonably accessible to people without (much) prior knowledge of the topic. Using more than one synonym for one of the armies just adds more confusion and annoyance than variation to the text.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the Federals back because it's an editorial matter that isn't important. I disagree with your comments on the sunken road because it is widely used in many histories of the battle. For example, James M. McPherson says in Battle Cry of Freedom, "In the center, though, Prentiss with the remaining fragments of his division and parts of two others had formed a hard knot of resistance along a country lane that northern soldiers called the sunken road and rebels called the hornets' nest." Neither of the terms Hornet's Nest or Sunken Road were used in the battle itself or the ORs (they originated in veterans' accounts), but you would certainly not delete the former, so why delete the latter? Would you delete Sunken Road from Battle of Antietam? Hal Jespersen 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know about the minutiae, but the most common name is good enough for me, and I'm a reasonably interested reader with some, though limited, prior knowledge of the topic. What bothered me was that the name wasn't capitalized, so it didn't even look like a proper name. The comment about avoiding Federals was just a friendly reminder. I know a reasonanble amount of detail about the Civil War, but I've never actually seen the term "Federals" used (even if I understood what it was referring to).

Peter ^Isotalo 19:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a side note on "Federals", speaking as a born & raised Southerner, we use "Federals" often, as well as "Yankees", "Those people", "Northerners", "Yanks", "Wheeler-Dealers", "Unionists", "Federal Soldier", "Union Soldier", "Billy", "Blue Coats", "Blue Devils". If you care to notice, throughout the south "Blue Devil" is an extremely popular mascot, meant to be more insulting that the use of any Indian-named mascot ever was. And of course the list is as long, if not longer the other way (Johnny Reb, Secesh, etc).

Grayghost01 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester

Got your note. My input/work on 2nd Winchester will take a few weeks or even month or two, so I'll chew away at it, and then notify you. If you ever come to Winchester, let me know and I'll give you a personal tour. Grayghost01 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Romney Expedition and etc.

Scott & Hal,

I'm sending this to both of you, as I don't know which of you administers what.

As I am filling in material for Civil War events in the Winchester area, I've noticed that the Romney Expedition is missing, and so I will start a stub article. I searched wiki and could not find anything on it.

It should be the opening battle of Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862. In your campaign box, you start with 1st Kernstown, but the Romney Expedition is the real beginning, and should be added first in the sequence.

Also missing is Jackson's Railroad Operations against the B&O (The Great Train Robbery) in the spring of 1861 (at least I can't find any wiki article on it). That should be it's own sub-box in your "Early Operations 1861" Campaign scheme. Once again, with your permission, I can stub an article on that.

These stub articles, I will give a good solid paragraph to start it, and perhaps a public-domain image, if available.

Finally ... I noticed on the cities of the Civil War that Romney was listed as a Northern city. ?? I suppose I see the technicality that WV became a state in the Union a few years into the war. However, you all must understand that those counties (the neck of WV) did NOT join the Union with WV in the war, and were part of Virginia. Later, after the war, these "neck" counties exercised an opportunity to transfer to Virginia.

Romney, Martinsburg and Charlestown were pro-Seccession towns, and generally were under the watch or control of Confederate forces anytime the Confederates were in town.

I suggest that you re-consider the placement of Romney on the list, and to put it either in the South's line ... or ... if you name your border group as Border/Disputed, it might actually more logically fit there, as would any town in WV.

For the Cause, the Grayghost01 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal and Grayghost01, the Romney Expedition was a fairly significant and well documented event. Perhaps the best modern coverage by a known secondary author is an analysis 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 nice 2000 biography of Jackson also dives into the expedition, as well as the train raid, and analyzes them in the context of the Valley Campaign. Gary 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 19:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Army of Virginia

You are absolutely correct. I had forgotten that. Maybe a parathesis to clarify so some other poor unsuspecting soul (like me) does not make the same mistake. Sorry that I edited it. I did not mean any disrespect.

Protection for Gettysburg

Hey, do you have the authority to protect the Battle of Gettysburg article? All the vandalism and reversions have been extremely obnoxious. So, if there is anything you can do, it would make all our lives easier.--Apostlemep12 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Hampton III

I revised the Wade Hampton III article section In memoriam per your comments on March 22. Please review the changes, Thanks! Regards, Gamecock 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Hampton Street in South Carolina into Microsoft Streets and Trips and got a whole list of Hampton roads, streets, avenues, etc. I say approximately 47 because I counted each one and my counting may have been off one or two. I'm sure there are even more, but I don't know of any database in SC that includes every single road. Gamecock 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) ... One more thing, about the "recently victorious" comment. From 1877 to 1890 the Conservatives (which Hampton was the leader) controlled the General Assembly and the Tillmanites managed to win control in 1890. Since Hampton was from a rival faction of the Democratic party, the Tillmanites decided not to give him a third term despite Hampton wanting a third term. Gamecock 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

In Hell Before Night

This arrived on my doorstep today so I will be adding this to the sources and citing as soon as I have finished it. Tirronan 19:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I used Inkscape. This is a drawing program similar to CorelDraw, but I think it is better when it comes to creating maps. You can download it freely from www.inkscape.org .

Answer to ACW maps

I have always been intrested in the ACW, as well as all the conflicts in North American history(although I`m from Romania): French&Indian Wars, Independence War and the War of 1812etc. I simply wanted to learn more details about the ACW, so I started making maps after reading texts about individual battles (I have a visual memory and I keep something in mind only if I represent it). Them someone told me that they are quite good and I should post them on Wikipedia or to create a website for them. Now I don`t have enough to create a website.

No, I am actually making two or three of them during one day. It takes me about 40 min. to 1 hour for one. I am firsty reading the wikipedia text on the battle or campaign, then I google for additional inform. or maps( I memorize some of the map features to get a bigger picture) and finally I proceed to work. In any case, I have been making maps since I was 6 years old (now I`m 19). I have only discovered Wikipedia about 2 years ago and I am a contributor since January.

Thanks

Thanks for your suggestions. I will make those corrections as soon as possible. I also think that the maps are a little crowded, for example the map on the battle of Nashville. Your maps are much clearer and I admire that. I don`t think I can enlarge the maps I already made, but the next ones will be 2 or 3 times bigger.

GB edit

Why did you change my Gettysburg edit? Nothing in it was wrong. I've been doing this stuff since I was little, and have been a Gettysburg enthusiast since like the 1st grade. All I did was add minor info in relation to locations of units, and changed the casualty numbers from "46,000 to 51,000" to "49,000 to 53,000" since the latter is the more accurate, as this includes skirmishes before and after the battle in Gettysburg, but still in the "Gettysburg Campaign". There was absolutly nothing wrong with my additions, and therefore I have changed it back to what it was before.

Q's on this subject

Where was Robert E. Lee at this time? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.199.22.246 (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have provided no context, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Hal Jespersen 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chickamauga

Pleas check the location of the Chickamauga creek entering the TN river. You have the direction reversed and the distance a little to much.(it is north east 3.5 mi) The distance you have in the article i is about the distance from Chattanooga to the town of Chickamuga not the distance to where the creek enters the river. but the direction from chickamauga to chattanooga is north. (I was born in Chickamauga and lived in the area all my life) 68.53.216.27 05:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Jack Everett jeverett.ee72@gtalumni.org[reply]

Early Life of John Bell Hood

The Article on John bell Hood in the "Early life" section Saiys that, "His classmates included James Longstreet, James B. McPherson, and John M. Schofield; he received instruction in artillery from George H. Thomas. All three of these men would become Union Army generals who would oppose Hood in battle." James Longstreet did not oppose him in battle, He was another Confederate general. And I do not know exacley how to edit it, thank you for reading this Sethy-boy 15:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chickahominy River

I think it would benefit from your attention and I trust your judgment. I find it an interesting angle on the Peninsula Campaign. I just finished rereading To the Gates of Richmond again. Author Sears notes that the the poor maps and information wreaked some havoc on both sides; however, McClellan definitely seems to have suffered more, perhaps because of his need for planning and not being on home turf. It probably didn't help the Union cause that Lee's background was as an engineer; he knew what a problem bridging and crossing back and forth over the "Chick" was for his opponent. Note, he avoided doing the same. However, by the time of Glendale and Malvern Hill, roads and map confusion even struck the Confederates hard, especially the former, one of those days when a different outcome may have changed history in a major way.

My most recent edits in the Chickahominy River article were due to a recent news article [1] about a costly problem at Walker's Dam, and realizing the WP article on the river lacked more modern information. Of course, all of that is at the eastern "lower" end. BTW, part of our drinking water here in Grove, Virginia where I live comes from the Chick. Also, I took the hint and went back into Grand Contraband Camp and added at least some references. Touché. Best wishes, Mark Vaoverland 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Champion Hill

Hi Hal! I just reverted a change at Jackson, Mississippi; the change was to alter "Battle of Champion Hill" to "Battle of Champion's Hill". I find that Battle of Champion's Hill redirects to the main article on the battle. As a native Mississippian, I have never heard Champion Hill referred to as "Champion's Hill" before. Do you know anything about this? Thanks. --Tkynerd 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

battle of seven pines

im sory im new to wikipedia and i was reading through the article and for the section labled oposing forces i added a tag and i was not sure what the reason for its removal was. i am sory for any misunderstanding and was just trying to be helpfull. Crazydjman 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Heth / Cincinatti

I did not write the section about Cincinatti, but noticed your request for a source. So, just for fun, I looked it up. Would this suffice? [2] I am out of my area of comfort, so that is the extent of my interest. Mark Vaoverland 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACW Bios

Hello,

Nice additions to Henry Baxter. You may also want to check out Roeliff Brinkerhoff, Hugh Boyle Ewing, Charles Ewing and St. John R. Liddell. I plan on adding Gabriel R. Paul this afternoon. It's nice to have someone reviewing my articles and checking them for accuracy and proper formatting. Thanks! Mrprada911 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milroy Bio

Hi Hal. I'm currently building a page on the 9th Indiana Infantry and was grateful to find your biography of Robert H. Milroy. Your insights on Milroy's lowest moments were good, and I liked the source listing, particularly the Jasper Co. Library Milroy document collection.

I did note one discrepancy in the biography, based on Milroy's appointment letter in that collection from Governor Morton dated April 15, 1861. If Wikipedia is right that firing on Sumter began on April 12, 1861, then Milroy's appointment was three days afterwards. The most recent edit of the Robert H. Milroy bio said two weeks, and wasn't explicit about the first date the firing began. Fort Sumter says there was firing for 34 straight hours, so it apparently continued for more than a day.

I'd appreciate any corrections to my pages in future, and am gaining an appreciation for the difficulties of encyclopedia entry writing. I am finding that my book sources (Roy Morris' bio of Ambrose Bierce, for example) make questionable assertions. Morris asserted that the 9th IVI killed General Robert S. Garnett at, and I have at least one source that indicates it was the 7th.

Alan S. Morrison Alansmorrison

John Pegram

Greetings. I was surprised to be uinable to find a WP article on General John Pegram, CSA. Any thoughts? Mark Vaoverland 20:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ACW Chattanooga2Carolinas.png

You uploaded this image and tagged it with {{PD-release}} - which indicates you have the copyright holder's permission to release it. If this is the case you need to provide supporting evidence for this. If you took the photo you can change the license to {{PD-self}} and state that it is your own work in the image summary. If this is the case for other images you've uploaded you may want to consider changing their tags as well. Best wishes. Madmedea 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Gettysburg Cyclorama additions

See the article's talk page. Your recent additions look awsome, but I have one contradiction that needs clearing up. Thanks! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Philippoteaux_painting_Gettysburg_Cyclorama.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Philippoteaux_painting_Gettysburg_Cyclorama.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the URL of the page where you downloaded the image from. I tried to look for it on the NPS site but I didn't have the time to slog through all the pages looking for this one image. Regards, howcheng {chat} 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award for you

		The Minor Barnstar
		In honor of making some nice cleanups to the article I started for the Burnside carbine, I award you this Minor Barnstar. SU Linguist 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Hell Before Night

I've read the book and while it was a good read it represent nothing that wasn't covered better by other sources. I am guessing that Mr. Macdoughal as a lot of achedemic friends that recommended the book. I can add the references if you so desire but frankly unless you have an interest in my doing so I would just pass. Tirronan 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee

I will get on it. Mark Vaoverland 22:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Vaoverland 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bedford Forrest at the Fallen Timbers.

I read your Shiloh entry and noticed in the "Fallen Timbers" section, you say that Nathan Bedford Forrest was shot near the spine. After this, he apparently lifted a Union soldier up to serve as a shield as he retreated. Many of Forrest's biographers believe that this is an exaggeration, as his back injury would have prevented him from lifting something as heavy as a soldier. Perhaps you should include this in your entry. If you need a citation, look at Jack Hurst's biography on Forrest.

I fixed this on June 22. Hal Jespersen 20:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flags

I see your point, but all the other battle articles, from ancient times till WWII and beyond have flags included in the battle boxes. Why should the ACW articles make an exeption?

I think it hepls personalize the combatant sides. Many people that are not accustomed to the ACW will recognize the beligerants more easily.

I used the CS battle flag instead of the national flag because it remained the same for most of the duration of the war.

And finally, this is an electronic encyclopedia and we should make use of images, maps, tables, flags etc. more than in books or magazines. The visual impact of an electronic article is by far more important. Andrei nacu

flags2

I agree with you. I was not thinking about the racial connotations and the political issues of this topic. And yes, it makes no sense of putting flags for a war that had the same beligerants from the start to the end.

I still want to know if you agree with using the surrender icon for battles such as Fort Sumter, Vicksburg, Fort Donelson&Ft. Henry, Appomattox etc.? Andrei nacu

Unspecified source for Image:WHL Wallace.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WHL Wallace.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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. 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 specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for providing basis for that removal. I won't re-add it. Although... it should be stressed somewhere that it was a major Union victory in the article if hasn't been already. Kwsn^(Ni!) 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Defenses of Washington D.C.

Thanks for helping me out with that template. It was driving me crazy. JKBrooks85 19:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I chose grey because blue was too dark with the blue background, and I don't know how to change the font color. If you want to do that, go ahead. You'll have to change the link colors, too, however. JKBrooks85 20:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Okolona

The Civil War is your area of expertise, want to take a look and have a fiddle? SGGH ^speak! 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote William Sooy Smith to fix the redlink. If you are interested. SGGH ^speak! 22:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Battle of Island Number Ten

Sorry about the image removal on this page the other day, had a tickbox ticked on the program I was using when I shouldn't have had, thanks for reverting. J Milburn 00:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Look At

Please look at the talk page of Seven Days Battles

Silver seren 20:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recent edits to article on Patrick O'Rorke

"suggest you find a secondary source in which the spelling is different and cite that"

Would an article from his actual home town do?

 http://cornafean.com/Patrick_O'Rorke.htm

Please note that Mr. O'Rorke's name is spelled both ways in the article.

And this is a quote from the July 22nd email I received from Tommy (the Cornafean webmaster) when I asked about the spelling:

"In relation to the spelling of Colonel O'Rorke's name, yes the conventional spelling of his name is O'Rorke. The normal spelling of this name in the Cornafean area and Ireland in general is O'Rourke."

Will adding the Cornafean link be sufficient to satisfy the comment about the name spelling variant?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Thank you kindly.

And thank you kindly for future messages in which you sign your name (four tildes). This is more info than you had in the article, which is good, but I was hoping you could cite a Civil War history that uses the alternative spelling. What they call him in Ireland is really irrelevant to the English language article. (As an example, I'll bet the Japanese have yet another version of his name, but we don't mention that either.) If he used the spelling himself, or his family documents used it, or the Army has official documents with other spellings, that would be worth noting, just as would discrepancies in birth dates, causes of death, etc. Merely the possibility that someone else might spell his name differently is not worth noting. And I would not take evidence from a non-CW website that may or may not have been prepared carefully in regards to spelling. Hal Jespersen 21:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Sorry about that ... I usually do remember the tilde thing. I guess the stress of going 14 months without a job is starting to rattle me a wee bit; not to mention I shouldn't be working in the middle of the night, eh? Sorry again ... I digress.

I'm no Civil War buff (or a buff of any war really) ... and I certainly have no desire to question an actual authority on the subject ... but there are more than a few references that use "O'Rorke" and "O'Rourke" pretty much interchangeably in reference to the same person.

This underlines my thought that it would be prudent to mention the alternate spelling so folks know for an encyclopedic fact that both refer to the same gentleman. I must disagree in regard to the irrelevancy in an English language article since both the country of his birth and his adopted country would most likely be using the English language version of both this site and Google; which BTW shows search results for the same person ...

under "O'Rorke":

Gettysburg National Military Park - Little Round Top: Colonel Patrick O'Rorke
Colonel Patrick O’Rorke Memorial Bridge
70 books using O'Rorke

under "O'Rourke":

photo of Patrick Henry O'Rourke
HistoryNet.com article on the regiments at Little Round Top
The 20th Maine and Third Brigade on Little Round Top
Who Saved Little Round Top? A Response to the Melcher Challenge
Pickett and His Men by LaSalle Corbell Pickett
6 Google-scanned books using O'Rourke

and finally, under both!

Patrick's biography on his home town's web site
National Irish Freedom Committee (Woodside, NY) article on O'Rourke
Wikipedia article on the battle at Little Round Top
Vincent's Brigade on Little Round Top
photo of memorial in Gettysburg - note caption vs. stone!
Draw the Sword ... Focus: the 140th New York
Irish-American Landmarks: A Traveler's Guide by John A Barnes

which just further illustrates the fact that someone doing research needs to know about both spelling variations to get complete information. JimScott 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Being still a newbie, I find this going back and forth on the Talk pages confusing not to mention duplicate content. Is there a protocol as to which Talk page we should stay on for a single thread? Since I started the thread on your Talk page, shouldn't we just stay here? Please elucidate. Thank you kindly. JimScott 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. FWIIW, according to a retired engineer I worked with for quite a while, in this type of situation the Japanese (in the 50's at least) commonly used the English name as given (or spelled out in Katakana). He said usually they called him "Richardson-san" when he was there in the late 50's as an electrical engineering consultant rebuilding / updating several Japanese airports (aside from other things before they realized he spoke Japanese :-). JimScott 04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now I see what you mean by "a footnote on the guy's name right at the top of the article". I like it a lot better than my scribbling. Thanks for your patient assistance. JimScott 21:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Watts de Peyster

Hi Hlj,

With regard to de Peyster, I believe he belongs in the Sickles and Thomas articles for a few reasons.

With regard to Sickles, he was one of his good friends, and wrote extensively on the III Corps and their contributions at Gettysburg. Most modern historians cite de Peyster's "Gettysburg and After", or books derived from this work, when writing about Sickles' contributions to the battle. I think it's notable to point out their friendship, since that may have colored his accounts of Sickles' actions [for better or worse].

As for Thomas, I can only refer you to Thomas's own words, in Van Horne's Life of G.H. Thomas, page 422: "you must permit me to acknowledge my grateful sense of your kind appreciation of my services", and then goes on to tell de Peyster to stop flaunting his name for President(I think, further example of de Peyster's admiration). If you could help me think of a way for me to be more specific and relevant, I'd appreciate it!

Thanks again. Mrprada911 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buell gravesite URL

Why'd you change the Find-A-Grave info for Buell? Both the format that I used and the one you replaced it with are accepted by Wiki standards. Spacini 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [mea culpa] Thanks for the quick reply and clarification. Spacini 23:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: de Peyster

Hal, on the subject of de Peyster and Sickles, I just wanted to point out AN ANALYSIS OF THE BUFORD MANUSCRIPTS by Eric Wittenburg, which states that DePeyster was a close friend and confidant of General Sickles, and was actively involved in "alumni" activity of the Third Corps. An organization called the Third Army Corps Union was formed as a beneficial society for the wives and children of veterans of the Third Corps, and DePeyster helped write its history. (47. William Shreve, The Story of the Third Army Corps Union (Boston: privately published, 1910). de Peyster also wrote at length on Mott, French, Kearny (his cousin) and Humphreys, all of III Corps Fame.

My POV is more from a 19th century perspective. Current authors cite early 20th century authors who cite back to contemporary pieces during or after the war, and this includes de Peyster who was widely regarded as one of the best historians and the foremost military critic of the time.

From what I read, I believe that he did not only have a significant effect on Sickles' legacy, he basically created it, at least the written part, and that is taking into consideration Sickles' endless self-promotion. (though I may be wrong). When I have more sources I will expand the de Peyster piece further and see if that can somehow be worked into the Sickles bio.

However I do feel that his contributions to the legacy of Buford, Thomas, and Sickles is as of now overlooked. Thanks for the feedback! Let me know your thoughts. I'm only an amateur civil war buff blessed with a priceless library of rare books, so I try my best. Mrprada911 09:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hal, one other thing, just as an example of the volumnious contributions of de Peyster to Sickles legacy, see also:

Gettysburg: The Meade-Sickles Controversy by Richard Allen Saunders pp. 67-68, 110, 132, 1962 and 202
The Third Day at Gettysburg & Beyond by Gary W. Gallagher
de Peyster's biography of Mott in Major-General Gershom Mott U.S.V.], The United Service Magazine, Hammersly Co.: Harvard, 1885
John Bigelow's The Campaign of Chancellorsville, p 194, 241, 249, 276
General Grant's Resting Place, which describes the proximity of de Peyster and Sickles (They were basically neighbors in NYC)
Also some de Peyster works at the Cornell Library, which include obituaries of Heintzelman, Hooker, "The Third Corps and Sickles at Gettysburg" (1886), "The last days of the old Third Corps (as we understand it) with the Army of the Potomac, Before and After Gettysburg) with N.H. Loring
Plus his History of the Third Corps, Army of the Potomac which include articles in The Citizen, the Citizen and Round Table, Foley's Volunteer, Soldiers and Sailors' Half-Dime Tales of the Late Rebellion, and others, including articles such as "III Corps at Gettysburg: General Sickles Vindicated", and were bound into six volumes by a Professor John Draper--de Peyster was given an "exquisite badge set with jewels, a ruby representing the first, a diamond the second, and a sapphire the third division" for completing this one. Not just an author good things to say about him in my POV. Thanks again, look forward to your feedback. Mrprada911 09:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His son Johnston de Peyster was Sickles' aide and attache while he was Minister to Spain

Williams P. Sanders

That was an excellent edit. I wrote the first draft when I realized there was no wikipedia article on him, but you improved it greatly. --Baxterguy 11:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletion

I did not check the content or context of the link before it was deleted, I merely saw a broken template link and assumed that it was because the link was unnecessary rather than because of the format of the template. Sorry. Bobo . 16:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On User talk:Bobo192, Hlj said:
Thanks for the reply. It turns out that a generous system administrator restored the template this morning and it was relatively simple to use the undo command on the 11 articles.

Thank you for your patience. Indeed the templates all appear to have been restored as they should have been. Bobo . 17:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:OOB

It's actually quite interesting. Its actually less of an order of battle, and more of the details of the chain of command for every corps in the Army. For instance, take an easy Corps (XXI). It shows when each of the 3 divisions were created, and the data on all of the brigades (3 brigades per division). They were all created at the same time, and eliminated at the same time. I could take some digital photos and email them to you if you'd like, to see if it'd be a worthwhile project. It's helped me to understand changes such as the I Corps from Chancellorsville to Gettysburg when a lot of enlisments expired, or the complicated split of the "Wings" of XVI Corps (while it simultaneously participated in the Arkansas expedition). Mrprada911 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:OOBs

Also, it would not be showing each individual regiment in and out of the brigades, that would months to put up. It only lists the regiment that brigade commanders came from. Mrprada911 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for help on Zollicoffer

I appreciate your help in making the ref visible in the Zollicoffer piece. I have done my best to get the hang of inserting refs of this kind, but I remain baffled when there are no previous refs. Anyway, thanks.

-Tom

Tom Wood 02:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gen'l Hancock

Thanks for your comment. I understand your citation preferences, and I'm just as nitpicky about changes to Calvin Coolidge, which I largely wrote. I'd like to expand the intro paragraph on Hancock a bit, and then submit it for Featured Article review. Is there anything else you think we should fix first? Coemgenus 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your comment about Featured Articles, but I think the process does help a good article get wider exposure so, for me anyway, that makes it worth it. I agree with you about the problem of using a single source. The problem is that while Hancock's military exploits are well-chronicled, the rest of his life is covered in only one modern biography, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'll look around for some other larger works. Coemgenus 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

On a page you recently put MOS what does that mean?--Kumioko 13:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it isn't really a quotation, its a citation.--Kumioko 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Station

I see you have taken it upon yourself to revert an edit I made in the Gettysburg Campaign article. It appears that it is unknown to you that the Battle of Brandy Station was the largest cavalry battle in US History as well as the largest to ever take place on the North American continent. Admittedly, this is a fact known primarily to those who have actually studied the battle.

It is clearly appropriate to request a citation for a claimed fact. However, it is unnecessary to simply delete relevant information because it is unknown to you. BTW, this is a fact that is easily verifiable through a simple google search. If you are interested in making significant contributions to WP, you would do well to spend less effort playing gate keeper and a just a bit of time checking facts unfamiliar to you. This is also a good way to educate yourself on the unfamiliar. EastmeetsWest 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Army

I understand the relevancy of your admonition that I should cite a secondary source that refers to the Union Army, Armies, or Forces as "National." I'll do some looking but the term is somewhat dated and most histories of the Civil War written after the Nineteenth Century don't use it. In my opinion, since people such as Grant and Lincoln used the term frequently, it deserves mention. Whether historians know it as the "National Army" seems to me irrelevant; people at the time knew it as such. Your thoughts?Khan_singh 07:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Maryland Campaign is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history

I've just added the template to the talk page, I'd like you to complete it by adding an assessment. Actually, I'm writing this while editing the September 5, 1862 page; and I'd appreciate if you could check the other dates. Thank you, Comte0 11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for rolling back the deletion of that Ed Bearss link. Mark Heiden 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pickett's Charge GA Sweeps Review: Pass

Since you listed your name as maintaining the article on the talk page, here is a copy of the review in case you miss it in your watchlist:

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a few minor corrections, but there were no major problems with the article. These included moving a quote from the aftermath section into the intro (if you think it should be elsewhere, feel free to move it, but standing by itself it didn't work well where it was at) and removing the popular media section. The section can be readded if more information about the battle in the film can be presented. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Who

can you give me a list of some people that died in the third battle of chattanooga and a site with the biographies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.70.131 (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA sweeps: Ambrose Burnside (pass)

I have reassessed this article as part of the current GA sweep; I believe it should retain its GA status and have updated the talk page templates to reflect this.

I made a few minor copyedits as part of the review; since your name is listed as maintaining the article, I thought I should bring your attention to one in particular. There was what looked to be a transcription typo in the second quotation, which I corrected. However, as with all quotes, it's possible this was in the original, so it might bear a second look from someone who has access to the sources ;)

Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Hi Hal,

The {{IPAEng}} links I placed in my edits should take you to a quickie IPA chart for English that we're trying to standardize Wikipedia with. The problem with writing, say, /e/, is that some people use it for [ɛ] and others for [eɪ], so that it's often impossible to know what was intended. By being redundant and writing /ɛ, eɪ/, there's no danger of confusion. kwami 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps Collection

Is there an easy way to get a collection or page showing all your maps for easy saving or viewing? Blooooo 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely helped, thanks! Blooooo 01:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one ugly piece of text in the Rosecrans article

On second reading I now see why this text reads correctly. The technique works much better on the printed page than it does on the wiki page. I'll bet you end up reverting this change a bunch. BusterD 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better as a blue link. BusterD 17:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strategies???

what were the strategies of the battle of antietam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.159.197 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's strategy divided his army to hit Union forces in several places. It was a crazy approach to tactical planning--and an approach which often worked with huge success for the Confederate Army, in various battles and actions. This time though, the battle plans were accidentally dropped, and were found by Union soldiers. --Steve, Sm8900 20:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually bother replying to anonymous questions of this type, but since Steve decided to edit my user page to be helpful, I think I have to follow-up. :-) Steve is describing the strategy of the Maryland Campaign, which was to invade the North to replenish supplies and put political pressure on the northern government in advance of the 1862 congressional elections. Lee assumed that any pursuit by George B. McClellan would be ineffective, so he felt free to break his army into pieces to accomplish different objectives, one of which was to neutralize the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, so that his supply line through the Shenandoah Valley would not be interrupted. As Steve notes, however, one of Lee's orders for the campaign was obtained by McClellan and the Confederates had to quickly concentrate at Sharpsburg to avoid being destroyed piecemeal. The plan for the actual Battle of Antietam itself was to defend the Army of Northern Virginia against destruction, which was difficult because McClellan had a larger army. Lee did not have his army construct entrenchments or other field works, as he would do in the battles of 1864-65, so his defensive actions consisted of absorbing blows and responding with strong counterattacks. Fortunately for Lee, McClellan accommodated this by attacking in a piecemeal fashion, never concentrating all of his force at a decisive point. After the bloodiest day in US military history, Lee was able to withdraw his army back across the Potomac and McClellan did not pursue them effectively. Hal Jespersen 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the follow-up. as you were good enough to note my own small efforts, just want to say thanks for the great details. --Steve, Sm8900 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

(copy of reply posted at my own talk page). Ok. I appreciate your reply. I think that your reply and the time you took to write it here show a lot of helpfulness and open attitude. thanks. I will take some more time to read what you wrote, and then perhaps come up with some better ideas. By the way, I do appreciate these articles, and all the effort you took on them, especially if you wrote most of these yourself. they are very helpful. thanks again. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longstreet Criticism

"In the 20th century, Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Lee and his three-volume work, Lee's Lieutenants, kept criticism of Longstreet foremost in Civil War scholarship."

I'm on my third read of the abridged 'Lee's Lieutenants.' As a matter of fact just recently finished the Gettysburg Campaign & aftermath. Freeman in this version is extremely fair in judgment of Longstreet & his legacy which can be traced to his actions at Gettysburg. IMHO he is reasonably objective & makes sure to point out that post-war criticism of Longstreet has been unduly harsh. Rather Freeman distributes failure at Gettysburg to, yes some to Longstreet, Hill, Ewell, more so Lee & even more to Stuart.

John johnheigljr@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.160.132 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

francis bartow

the wikipedia article mentions that gen bartow was the second confedarate gen to die in the war. It later says he was the first gen to die. which is correct ?

Doug G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.86.243 (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't had much to do with that article (as you may infer from its Talk page), and I'm traveling, but I think he was the second. I'll check further next week. Hal Jespersen 11:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Garnett was killed eight days before, and his article lists him as the first general officer (on either side?) to die in the war. Hope that helps! BusterD 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garnett was the first general officer killed on either side. I had to do some work on the Bartow article because he was not technically a general at all. Hal Jespersen 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the info. I live in Bartow, Florida, which is named after Francis Bartow. I have read in various historical accounts on the origins of the City of Bartow that F. Bartow was the first confederate general to die in the war. So I was curious to see if this was correct. Now I know.[reply]

Doug G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.86.243 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "myth" of the charge up missionary ridge

I am trying to leave a question on the Chattanooga (missionary ridge) talk page. I have never done this before and I do not see where to leave the question. I even looked a the Wiki help material: "When you post a new comment, put it at the bottom of the talk page. The exception is that if you're responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs." Wha? Anyway, I am reading Grant's memoirs and also "Grant takes command" by Catton. Catton states clearly that it's a myth that Union the men charged up the hill without orders. On page 82 he describes how the officers on the field gave the orders. (although it's true that Grant did not order that the ridge be taken.) The wiki article repeats the myth as truth. I'm inclined to make the change. Any thoughts? Thanks. -Neil Ngitkind@aol.com "gopokey" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopokey (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halleck/Sherman

I'm curious, do you know if Halleck and Sherman ever reconciled after their spat in April 1865? Sherman only mentions Halleck's name once in his Memoirs after the incident, so I suspect not.Khan_singh 06:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks.Khan_singh 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I reverted link spam on Gettysburg Battlefield and saw an IP address edit that changed JBB to NH from Mass. The previous version was from you, so I assumed he was from Mass and reverted the linkspam and that edit. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your vigilance here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 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 01:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Appletons @ famousamericans.net

Please see: this discussion on WP:AN --Versa geek 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we're dealing with a baby and bathwater situation here. This the way the pedia treated enyclopedia dramatica (expunged and oversighted). In that case, the action was justified. In this case, I think there's been a rush to judgment. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, Speak up on the WP:AN thread. From my perspective (as someone who does mainly anti-spam work), the problem here isn't so much Appleton's as a source - although it should be used with caution as it has been noted for it's inaccuracy - Rather, that there seems to have been a campaign to spam Wikipedia with links to a specific source of the Appleton's text. While a certain percentage of the links we have were added by legit content editors such as yourself, the vast majority were added by individuals who had a conflict of interest - and who's response when challenged was to abandon the userID and/or IP that was challenged and start the same activity under a new ID / IP. Despite this activity, we assumed good faith for a very long time (~9 months), mainly because Appleton's is a historical text, but the situation was getting out of hand. There are other sources for Appleton's Cyclopedia. It's a public domain text, parts of it can even be found on WikiSource. I hope at least some of this is helpful. --Versa geek 14:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

This article is up for peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment/archive1. Your comments are greatly appreciated! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Campaign

I'm curious about your placement of the image of McClellan and Johnson for this article. I moved it so that it was inline with the text. Your placement placed it above the text, dangling alone, at a screen resolution of 1024x768px. You are within your right to move it, but I am curious as to why you chose to place it above the text. Can you explain? I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers available online

Hello, I saw your tag on the talk page for Horatio Wright. I just wanted to let you know that I added a link the online version of Ballard's The History of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which was listed in the "Further reading" section. The publishers chose to make the entire book available to Google Book Search. Now anyone can peruse the book, even if their local library doesn't have a copy. I don't know if this resource is any interest to you, but since you took an active interest in the article, I thought I would leave you a note about it, just in case it might be useful. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)

Project news

The Intelligence task force has been created.
The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries.
Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome!
{{WPMILHIST}} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.

Awards and honors

Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.

Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600

2. TomStar81 — 5,500

3. Parsival74 — 5,200

4. FayssalF — 3,500

5. Roger Davies — 3,000

6. Ouro — 2600

7. Kateshortforbob — 2250

8. Cromdog — 2,200

9. BrokenSphere — 2000

9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000

9. Maralia — 2,000

12. MBK004 — 1,340

13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250

14. Sniperz11 — 1100

15. Burzmali — 1000

15. Cplakidas — 1000

15. Gimme danger — 1000

15. Raoulduke471000

15. TicketMan — 1000

15. Welsh — 1000

15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

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

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]