User talk:Hlj/archive2013

anniversary

Today is my ninth anniversary as a Wikipedia editor! Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations Hal and thank you for all your excellent work! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done, Hal.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Authorship designation

A question for an experienced editor:

If someone were to take a collection of letters and present them in a book, operating as an editor of the letters, in attribution would the work be ascribed to the writer of the letters or the person that edited the letters and presented them? Thanks for your consideration. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The Robinson House

The Robinson House has been a major landmark on the Manassas Battlefield for over 150 years. I noticed you have excluded it from all of the maps you uploaded to Wikipedia on the first and second battles of Bull Run, why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkhemet (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you have made some changes. Much improved. Now I can use some of them for my page on Gentleman Jim and the Robinson House. Thanks much. Kkhemet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just updated the first battle, too. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of a source to help settle this minor issue?

An ip user has raised a valid issue with the photographs on John Moulder Wilson. Could you look at the talk discussion and see if you know a roster for the units in question? Thanks! Congrats on your nine year anniversary. I should catch up with you via email; my last year has seen major changes for me, some good, others not. Joy and peace to you and those you love. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. No, I did some searching around the NPS soldier/sailor database, but came up with nothing. And OOBs rarely include company grade officers. It does seem to me that the photos are very similar faces. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Switching gears, do you have a recollection dealing with thomaslegion.net spamlinks in the past? I seem to remember this has come up before... BusterD (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. Getting old may do that to you. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• thomaslegion.net (*|search current)

Here's the link for your assessment. Spam?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Spam. But I've asked on AN/I for an uninvolved admin. Best you stay clear, since we have a long history. Appreciate the tool. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not keeping current with Wikipedia spamming policies. (As you may have noticed, circumstances have caused me to dial back my Wikipedia activities quite significantly.) This website looks relatively benign, one of many where hobbyists collect information about the war. I browsed around a little and did not see any red flags like lots of advertisements or malware, or pushing controversial POV. I am guessing that the primary complaint is that there are too many links being inserted, rather than the links being inappropriate in all cases. Some of the links I have seen added are to battle reports, which seem okay to me, although it might be more legitimate to link directly to the OR. Other pages on their site are clearly duplicative of Wikipedia articles (in terms of content overlap, not plagiarism), so those should not be linked. It seems to me that links should be denied on a case-by-case basis, rather than an overall domain prohibition. Just my two cents. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Gen. Joseph King Fenno Mansfield's photo

Hi Hal,

I appreciate your American Civil War maps on Wikipedia, thank you for your efforts!

I am new to Wikipedia other than viewing it but I noticed that the photo for Gen. Mansfield on his page is not of him. I do not know how to replace that. I see that his "real" photo is available on Wikimedia commons. I don't know who is in the current photo.

The pages source the incorrect photo to NARA but I cannot find it there.

I am currently writing a bio. of Mansfield.

Thank you.

Larry FreiheitLarry Freedom (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The photo in the biography article is Mansfield, according to the picture credit listed in the photo description page. The alternative photo in Commons looks pretty similar, although the beard is trimmed a little differently. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology

My review of Busey & Martin at Amazon has been deleted in its entirey. I'll try to be considerably less crazy in the future. Your handling of the Pfanz quote Re Culp's Hill was admirable. Thank you.--Donaldecoho (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have completely forgotten the context for both discussions, but you're welcome. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheridan killing civilians

In a discussion about the number of civilians murdered by Sheridan you remarked, "the Valley and the March were destructive primarily to property and animals, not civilian. lives. Hal Jespersen

How do you think civilians on farms survived? When Sheridan burned their crops, took their animals and burned their homes, how many women and children starved to death with no source of food or shelter? He knew what he was doing. Grant and Lincoln were also responsible for Sherman's scorched earth policy as it was not related to warfare and was allowed and approved. The man was a murdering monster.

CherylGooden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.160.24 (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, although I must say I find the notion, in general, rather far-fetched. If you can find some reliable secondary sources that document people dying of starvation and that it was a direct consequence of Sheridan's knowing action, it might be worth modifying the article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with disambig at William Farrar Smith article?

Hello - I noticed your name on the talk page for William Farrar Smith, and I have a couple of questions there that you might be able to comment on. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Fitzhugh Lee dated 1858

Sir, I believe if you research this photo you will find it is actually William Henry Fitzhugh (Rooney) Lee. son of Robert E. Lee and Fitzhugh Lee's cousin. J. McParland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.124.67 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that I was involved in adding this photograph, but I have corrected it. Thank you for pointing it out. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Longstreet's command

I reverted the command under Longstreet's profile back to "Department" from "District". I used the Official Records temporarily as a reference to a page where Longstreet heads his official report as the "Department of East Tennessee". I can also reference additional reports and correspondence in the OR, particular one where Samuel Cooper give Longstreet authority over the "Department of East Tennessee" as the senior officer if necessary. Additionally the NPS pages for the battles of the Knoxville and East Tennessee campaign also uses "Department of East Tennessee" for describing the command at battles such as Dandridge (here:http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/tn028.htm) and Bean's Station (here:http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/tn026.htm). You may have used the Eicher book on Civil War High Commands for term "District", but I believe in this instance, the Eicher book is incorrect. If you feel using the OR would fall under original research, then I can substitute for one of the NPS webpages.

Yours respectfully, Semperpietas (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did use Eicher as the reference. It is not only in the bio of Longstreet, but on page 869, he gives a departmental history and indicates that the Department of East Tennessee was redesignated the District of East Tennessee, subsidiary of the Department of Tennessee, on July 25, 1863. In Jeff Wert's biography of Longstreet, page 329, he refers to Simon Buckner being reduced to division command and his Department of East Tennessee was disbanded. For some reason, Wert cites October 16 for this. Unfortunately, there are very few secondary sources that go into command/department details beyond Eicher. But since the details of this are cross referenced in multiple places in their book, I would tend to give them primacy over primary sources like OR. And although I'm a big fan of the CWSAC, they cannot be considered error-free. This is hardly a very important detail, so it is not critical which view prevails, but it should be accompanied by a footnote that indicates the disagreement between sources. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right as to it being a minor detail. I did not wish to appear pedantic about it. As for the Department of East Tennessee under Buckner being consolidated into the Department of Tennessee, I believe the reason for the confusion is about in late September Buckner inquired about his departmental authority with Bragg and Cooper, in response to his being reduced to a division commander and having troops that were formally in his department assigned to other commands (the correspondence can be viewed here (http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=Department%20of%20East%20Tennessee;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0056;didno=waro0056;view=image;seq=0653, http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=Department%20of%20East%20Tennessee;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0056;didno=waro0056;view=image;seq=0659), in which Buckner operated under the assumption that the subordination of the East Tennessee Department was only temporary for the purpose of the Chickamauga Campaign. Cooper declared it disbanded to Buckner as long as he was operating with Bragg, and then in January told Longstreet "that as senior officer in the Department of East Tennessee he was, by military rule and usage the commander of the department, with all rights and privileges pertaining to that command," (here:http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;q1=454;rgn=full%20text;idno=waro0054;didno=waro0054;view=image;seq=488;page=root;size=100). Until then, Longstreet headed his correspondence as commander of "Forces in East Tennessee". I usually avoid using the ORs due to the original research rule, but this isn't the first time I've found the Eichers use a name for an organization or command that is at odds with the ORs. By the way, do you think Longstreet's departmental command in the Suffolk campaign should be added as well? Semperpietas (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to JEB Stuart Wiki

BusterD,

Your removal of my edit is, respectfully, misplaced. Mosby's Memoirs meet the reliable source guidelines because he sets out in painstaking detail the arguments by authors after the war and without inserting his own opinion, shows how they could not possibly be true. The article setting forth opposition to Stuards

That Mosby also gives a first hand account is likewise a part of the reliability guidelines.

Unless you have another rule that I am unaware of, I will undo that revision. John Singleton Mosby (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're confusing me with editor User:Hlj. You and he seem to disagree about memoirs being included in what we deem reliable sources. Per WP:IRS, traditionally we only use first-person sources WITH secondary source backup, because primary sources can be easily misused by one not trained in their use. Please address your concerns to user Hlj.

In the case of David Hunter, I couldn't see a reliable source which called Hunter's 1889 death a suicide. The standard biography, Lincoln's Abolitionist General: The Biography of David Hunter refers to accusations of suicide in its first pages, but finds them unsupported by the record. I reverted the edit because I could find no verification of your assertion, and you should have provided such a source when you inserted the assertion. BusterD (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Stuart and John Mosby's Memoirs

Hlj

You edited out a reference to Mosby's Memoirs while leaving in opinions of modern day authors who do not address his defense of Stuart. I also have concerns on your interpretation of a "primary source" and with the notion that this is a hard and fast rule for exclusion. I read WP material and could find no absolute rule. It is one of discretion. Mosby was a well practiced lawyer and his Memoirs address the criticisms of Stuart which go to what was said back then along with modern authors. It is written as a trial lawyer (because that is what he was) replete with citations to battles and facts. I fail to see how this should or can be excluded even if it is considered a primary source. I would argue that it is not a primary source in the sense that it is an after action report taken contemporaneously with a battle. Rather, it was upon a thorough review of material decades after the war.

John Singleton Mosby (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Gettysburg Cyclorama Building.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gettysburg Cyclorama Building.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 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 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 the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 23:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the original image was, since I only noticed after it had been deleted, but I replaced it with an image from the NPS. Mojoworker (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured lists? MILHIST reviews?

Hello. I used to be Ling.Nut; we corresponded in the past. If you have anything useful to add to the current discussion at Talk:List of American Civil War battles (specifically, about Featured lists, MILHIST reviews, citations, casualty column, etc.), your opinions would be appreciated. • Serviceable†Villain 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. I can't say that I have anything useful to add. I have really cut back on my Wikipedia contributions over the last couple of years. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too, very very very very much so. I just wanna put this whole FLIST possibility to bed for that list. I may never seriously edit again in fact (though some articles tempt me more than others, e.g. Harlem Renaissance). Thanks for all you've done. May God bless you in every aspect of your life! :-) • Serviceable†Villain 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words. Good luck in your new endeavors. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

George Henry Thomas

I disagree with the comment on this edit, and think that it is better to use WYSIWYG, but I will leave it for someone else to take it further. Why did you also revert this part of the edit?

• {{Cite Appletons'|wstitle=Thomas, George Henry|year=1889|author=Henry Stone |short=x |notaref=x}}

back to

• {{Cite Appletons'|Thomas, George Henry|year=1889|author=Henry Stone|notaref=x}}

-- PBS (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the HTML dashes, we are dealing with WYSI*N*WYG, because in the Wikipedia text editing window, it is not possible to distinguish between hyphens and EN-dashes. To the reader of the article it makes no difference, so the preference of the person who does the majority of the editing should hold sway. If there was minor collateral damage to unrelated changes that got swept up in the reversion, my apologies. I did not notice. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Capital "A" army

Howdy there. I suppose if you want to abbreviate ranks there is a certain value in consistency. (If I wished to argue, I would argue for consistency in spelling out words to avoid confusion.)

But "army" is not capitalized unless it has some sort of modifier. This is simply standard English, and it is the standard required by the Manual of Style.

So perhaps we ought to split the difference.

In any case, we need to keep in mind we are discussing some "angels on the head of a pin" stuff here. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

An argument could be made for spelling things out if we were not talking about common English abbreviations, such as Dr. or Mrs. or Prof. or Lt. Gen. All of these are freely used in journalism as well as formal writing. However, since we almost invariably provide a wikilink for the first use of each such rank abbreviation in ACW articles, it is extremely unlikely that any confusion could result even for people unfamiliar with these common English-language abbreviations. I do not really care much about the Army/army issue, although confusion *can* result, since many Civil War articles refer to armies that are field organizations. so the sentences "he was appointed to command the Army" and "he was appointed to command the army" could mean something completely different. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop it

Stop making up numbers. The Battle of Gettysburg has also been completely revised by people like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.168.206 (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2013‎

I really doubt that you read my talk page regularly, so you probably will not see this reply, but the numbers are not made up. They are from recent secondary sources that focus specifically on determining accurate casualty rates. Over time, these more accurate numbers will flush out the use of the century-old sources that people continue to propagate out of laziness. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you (random anonymous IP editor) go back a year or two on the Gettysburg talk page and take a look at the previous conversation on this; the scholarship of the more accurate (and, in the article in question, well-sourced) numbers of recent years really has been fully explained and discussed to death, and there's no need to demonstrate academic laziness by careening in and anonymously whining about how hard math is. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously

Any and every source available suggests that Confederate battle dead at Cold Harbor was no more than a hundred. Your illusion of this 788 figure is erroneous and in no way could be close to an accurate figure. In fact, wikipedia is filled with lies and inconsistencies, because historical revisionists such as yourself want to control and distort accurate facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.168.206 (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2013

I've semi-protected this page for two weeks. In the meantime the IP needs to engage in the thread on the talk page and discuss with other editors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WOW!

I am disgusted with the editors of wikipedia. Making up silly numbers, locking pages that have inaccurate information. If you all choose to edit online encyclopedia's, take on some responsibility and report accurate figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.144.221 (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss the issues on the article's talk page then you will be seen simply as a disruptive editor. If you have sources to back your assertions up then you will need to discuss them with the other editors and gain a consensus. If you are unwilling then Wikipedia isn't for you as this is a collaborative site.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never done this before, so I don't know if I'm replying correctly, but...

I forget the name of the author an work (sorry), but I know that there's a work out there that actually tallied up the Confederate losses at Gettysburg. He defined it as Noon on 30 JUN- Noon 4 JUL (because that's how the reports work), and had very strict geographical parameters. IIRC, the result was over 28,000 (which you often see elsewhere), but there were quite a few changes between units. Of the 9 infantry divisions, most saw a slight increase from the previously accepted numbers due to previously incomplete records. Early was the only one that was way off. One division actually lost fewer men than reported.

For Cold Harbor, Rhea goes off the official records for US losses, and has trouble with the CS losses (incomplete).

VR,

JDG — Preceding unsigned comment added by James D. Glick (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Chickamauga comments

Hi Mr. Jespersen,

This is Harold Knudsen, I contacted you for your Chikamauga maps a while back.

I just established a Wikipedia account Saturday and wanted to put a piece of my perspective on the Wikipedia page for Chickamauga with the 150th of the battle this month. I know folks have cited my work before, but thought what was there was not explained in any detail, so I want to add how I explain the storm column or "schwerpunkt" as it would be called in German. I get more and more questions about this as time goes by, so I think this article would be a great place to add it in.

I added it in Saturday but it was gone today so I re-added it and I wanted to add a slide that shows the later shift Longstreet did in the morning of the 20th. Not sure how to add that in.

Kind regards, LTC (R) Harold KnudsenHarold Knudsen (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Harold, there are a couple of editors involved here. When you posted your lengthy addition, I edited it down a bit, by omitting some of the modern military concepts and balancing your opinion with some other secondary sources, notably Glenn Robertson of the Combat Studies Institute. However, my edits apparently alerted another editor who objected to citing your self published source, which is usually not done in Wikipedia, and he chopped out the entire thing. This repeated itself today, I see. If you want to include this opinion in the article, you may need to find a regularly published secondary source to avoid future editing conflicts. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hal, I thought this would be an enjoyable place to contribute and collaborate, not be shut out by other "editors." I get the impression the other editors really have an issue with my viewpoint. According to the link regarding something that is self published, it says there is a problem "if something Self-published may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field." I am not writing something as information or as a story about myself and my activities. I am contributing some military concepts, of which I am an expert (a requirement of wikipedia), applied to specific military history of which I am an also an expert. Now if one of these editors question that I am not an expert in my field; please put them in contact with me. I would be more than happy to explain I have long experience as a soldier trained on tactics, operational art, and strategic concepts. I spent most of 1988 to 1995 training in units on attack formations and defensive formations, which have their roots in the 19th century, and then as an evaluator in the late 1990s. Not to mention combat experience in a very large "schwerpunkt" that penetrated into Iraq in 1991. I have Operational level war experience with Multi National Corps Iraq and 3rd Army in the 2000s. I have a BA and MA from civilian colleges with quite a few courses in the American Civil War. I have more time in professional military colleges than a person normally takes to earn a Phd in history. So as a soldier/historian I want to contribute to that aspect of the explaining the column Longstreet used that you won't find in books written by civilian historians. My book as a munuscript was also looked at by eminent scholars such Bill Piston and John Marzalek who have a great eye for the correctness of historical research, prose, and other mechanics, and so in addition to my own application of military concepts, I would think my book is as "expert" a source as any other source regarding the mechanics of what occured at Chickamauga. The name of the publishing company does not make the expert, the content, work, and expertise of the author of a book are what is important. Sorry for being long winded, but I think that was awfully rude of whoever the editor was that simply elimated my post and then also take my book out of the bibliography that was there for years (by someone else) as to send me a message my view points and work are not welcome here. That has certainly given me a mind to post what I want here from now on. Please let me know who the other editors are who feel they decide what goes here, I would like to have an opportunity to offer my point of view to them directly. Placing a contribution to this article from by own book does not violate the rules of Wikipedia. I am using military concepts that are long established, not made up by me, only identified and applied comparativle to Longstreet's work by me as an expert, and I do not require these other editors approval of permission. Regards, Harold KnudsenHarold Knudsen (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Harold, You can find out who is editing articles by looking at the article's history tab and reading the summary comments. In this case the editor User:Fat&Happy is the one invoking the SPS restrictions. I do not know who this person is, but on the surface it seems as if he has a good reputation on Wikipedia. He will not necessarily see these comments on my talk page and if you use his talk page, I will not see those. (It is not impossible to see them, but few people on Wikipedia subscribe to the talk pages of individual users.) You may wish to move the conversation to the battle article's talk page. Before you embark on this, please be aware that the SPS article I pointed to more relevantly says "... self-published media, such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." So the key question to ask is whether you have been published elsewhere sufficiently on this subject to establish your reputation, not what your other credentials may be. (I personally have self published, but I understand that that book would never be acceptable as a Wikipedia reliable source.)

But in any event, the SPS issue is not the one that I raised--I was more concerned with the content. I thought it was inappropriate that, in a lengthy article that contains only a couple of paragraphs about the assault, you were adding two lengthy additional paragraphs extolling the military virtues of Longstreet, a viewpoint that is not universally held, and that you used a lot of modern military terminology and references to do so. This sort of thing would be appropriate in a DOD website, but the Civil War articles in Wikipedia are more focused on the 19th century. (I also push back at people who tried to make all sorts of connections between Spotsylvania Court House and specific World War I battles and tactics, so I'm not picking on you directly.) Also, I think that contributions by individuals should be evaluated and emphasized more in their biography articles than in the battle articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hal, Thanks for explaining how to see who is editing the articles. This is learning experience for me, but I will get the hang of it. Well, I can’t worry about User Fat & Happy thinks or does. I have a right to be here like anyone else. If he on surface has a good reputation, why does he simply delete my contribution without talking to me about it? On the content, I think the opposite. The mechanics of his deployment and execution of the column in my way of looking at it is very relevant to this battle article, and the comparative analysis is appropriate in any article about a battle. It’s never been explained in any detail in any book. I think the article is too thin on that assault column, and that is why I am adding in my take on it. I don’t see my take as extolling the military virtues of Longstreet anymore than the comment by Jeffry Wert in the previous paragraph. The preponderance of it is explaining in a matter of fact style hoe it lined up and why, and the second paragraph includes Jeffry Wert’s mention of Longstreet’s comment on the effects of this column. The one sentence extolling Longstreet’s thinking is a small fraction of the overall contribution. With regards to focus on 19th Century, there is nothing wrong with making connections to other periods, they are useful fact. The Hunley was a predecessor to the WWI submarines, which is a fact. Also, look for example the page on the Battle of Cannae; it has lengthy paragraphs on status on military history, and the Cannae Model which is a comparative to many 20th Century similar applications, and its general influence on those applications. The battle of Austerlitz page has a historical aftermath section which also draws comparisons to other time periods. Nothing out of the ordinary for a battle article. Having a view that is not universally held is fine. Like I said, all the authors that cover Chickamauga do not have my area of expertise, so naturally they are not going to see it through the prism of understanding I have. Nothing wrong with that. And not having a universal view is a good thing. Not an inappropriate thing. We need more varied commentary on historical subjects. Your books on Amazon on Posix, well I don’t know what those are, or what POSIX is, but I would never tell you have no place using your expertise to in those books on an article on POSIX. And your maps are here? If you do not consider yourself a credible source, than how can your maps be placed here in this standard? They were created by you as I understand, and not by a 3rd party? Harold Knudsen (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Cannae, the classic double envelopment, cited by hundreds of military historians, and the Hunley, being the first instance of a submarine sinking an enemy ship, have obvious and notable ties with future military developments. If you could produce (from a reliable secondary source) evidence that future generals used Longstreet as an inspiration for their tactics, we might have a similar situation. William Glenn Robertson of the Combat Studies Institute maintains that Longstreet's formation was "happenstance" and that Longstreet himself paid no special note of this tactic in his after-action report or in his memoirs. And of course we know that the success of the formation was helped in no little part by the mistakes on the Union side. So the whole thing is controversial and we cannot simply assert how important it was without including the appropriate secondary sources.

When I was referring to self published works, I was not thinking about my old POSIX computer standards (which are actually official international standards, so are definitely reliable sources if anyone chooses to cite them). I recently did an atlas of Ulysses S. Grant's battles up through 1862, which is being published through a Kickstarter project, and not through the reliable third-party publisher that would be required for a Wikipedia reliable source. As for my maps on Wikipedia, they are illustrations enhancing the articles and are not listed as cited references. (If anyone made a footnote claim such as "Hal Jespersen's map shows unit A on the left and unit B on the right," I suggest they should take a cold shower.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Hal, I do happen to have your talk page on my watchlist, since I've posted to it previously – so pardon me for jumping in here... Harold, you may want to read over the policy page on Wikipedia:Verifiability if you haven't already done so. It may clarify things a bit. Mojoworker (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Mojoworker - Hi nice to meet you and thanks for refering me to the the section on verifiability and self publishing. I am new to this site, and so gratefull to folks who help me. Your page said gone fishing, but that you will get this at some point. This section of the verifiability rules: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." I see no issue in my case - my work in the relevant field, which is military history/CW/WWI/WWII/artillery/maneuver/tactics/operational art/fire support, etc. has been published in reliable third party publications. Two that come to mind are Field Artillery Journal (1996) and Armor Magazine (2003). Both articles have since been cited in research papers at Command General Staff College or Army War College to my recollection, and are as much about military history as they are about the mechanics and art of war. My book on Longstreet was also professionally reviewed in Armor Magazine about 5 or 6 years ago, my work on Longstreet/CW and presentation of it won the Revere Award for 2011 at the Olde Colony Civil War Round Table, Dedham, MA. And I have presented to approximately 25 round tables since my book was published. My publisher - USA Publishing does not publish any and all manuscripts; they select what they deem reputable following thier own procedures. They would not have taken my work on if they thought it was not adequately expert. I have never considered them a "self publishing" firm, although I do retain the rights. My book sells more and more copies each year, and I am invited more and more to speak all over the country on my take on Longstreet's tactics to gatherings of people well educated on the Civil War. If the CW educated population did not think I was an expert, my book and speaking about it would not happen. And next month I am the Chickamauga/Chattanooga battlefield guide for the Longstreet Society Seminar. They would not ask me if I was not an expert at what happened at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. It is true my perpective is not universally agreed upon in the popular Civil War books, but I am looking at the subject with a different skillset than a purely academic historian. As I said to Hal Jespersen, I think that is a good thing. Academic historians have thier skillsets; different from the soldier. I add 25 years worth of experience in applying tactics, etc., with the education of where the roots of modern techniques come from. No differenty than the physician who writes about 19th century medecine through the lens of thier experience. But the rules here do not discount the viewpoint of an expert just because it is not universally agreed upon. Enough tooting my horn. I hope you caught some fish!

Regards,HaroldHarold Knudsen (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This seems good enough for me, although I should point out that you need to convince User:Fat&Happy, not User:Mojoworker or me. And this conversation would be more useful in the article talk page, not my personal page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the content discussion should take place at Talk:Battle of Chickamauga. Harold, I added a new section there, so please continue the discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Chickamauga#Longstreet's assaults. I also added a welcome message to your talk page at User talk:Harold Knudsen that has some links you may find useful. Mojoworker (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do - my mistake. HK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harold Knudsen (talk • contribs) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

(lengthy questions from Harold Knudsen moved to battle of Chickamauga talk page ...)

Back from traveling. It will take me a while to respond to your lengthy posting. (As before, this conversation would make more sense in the battle article talk page.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Cheat Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this pattern of editing look familiar?

Hi Hal! I've been following the many edits of a new account. At first I was thinking newbie, but now I suspect someone previously blocked for disruption. Do you recognize a pattern in these contributions? BusterD (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, there! Long time no hear. (I am assuming you watch my homepage. If you do not reply pretty soon, I will move this comment to yours.) No, I cannot say that I recognize any pattern. It is one of those people who fiddles around with the trivialities of the infobox; certainly no shortage of them. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been on extended hiatus, reconfiguring a career. Turned out pretty well. I'll send you email about it. But my time on Wikipedia has been mostly reactive. All my books were in storage for over a year. Tends to bind up my mind. I like paper references where I can lay hands on them. I sent the new account a welcome and a caution against removing picture captions, but that hasn't impacted the editing cycle. Few brand new editors start by adding/reformatting flag icons on military person infoboxes. Oh well, this will take care of itself over time. Glad to know we're both still alive and kicking. Will send you an update. BusterD (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! As always, I prefer email for personal conversations. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A possible addition to Template:ACW

Hi Hal. Please look at this discussion. Maybe I've missed something, or maybe there's a better way, but after reverting a user for inserting the link to a Georgia state governor, I'm considering adding a pair of links (for list pages yet uncreated). Could you give my suggestion a look? Thanks. BusterD (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I cannot say that I have even looked at this template for a few years, so my aura of fame for being one of its originators has faded quite a bit. (My concept of the template was perhaps different than yours. I was thinking more of a Reader's Digest view of the war, including links to articles that would be most familiar and popular, rather than making it exhaustively comprehensive.) When I first started reading the discussion about putting governors into the list, my thought was that there should be a category or list article somewhere that could be included with a single link, so I am happy that that seems to be the direction you are taking. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fort Henry to Fort Donelson map

Sir,

I'm writing a master's thesis of revisionism in military history, using incidents from Ft. D as examples. I'd like to use your map to illustrate the route of march from Ft. Henry to Ft. Donleson.

This is the page, with attribution, I'd like to use:

{ Your map }

“Fort Henry to Fort Donelson.” Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com. Accessed at: http://www.posix.com/CWmaps/Fort_Henry_to_Fort_Donelson.png

...for some reason, the cut and paste doesn't bring the map image along (?). Just imagine your map, turned 90 degrees, with the attribution on the bottom.

Incidentally, I'm using your map because the old NPS map has the entire march occurring on 11 FEB, instead of beginning on the PM of 11 FEB as a head start, and ending 12 FEB. I'd rather use a map that I don't have to correct, even if it would be an opportunity to show the need for more revisionism!  ;)

Is there anything else I need to do?

I'm having trouble with this Wiki thing, too. Please send your reply to:

jglick1@my.apsu.edu

Thanks.

VR,

James D. Glick — Preceding unsigned comment added by James D. Glick (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

BusterD (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas to you and those you love, Hal. May your day be filled with joy, hope and love. BusterD (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)