User talk:Hlj/archive2014

Happy New Year Hlj!

Happy New Year!

Hello Hlj:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy Anniversary and Thanks

Today is my 10th anniversary editing Wikipedia! I am sorry to say that over the last couple of years my velocity of editing new and significantly improved articles has diminished a good deal, but I do check my watchlist daily. Greetings and thanks to all of my friends who have helped me in my efforts over the decade to document and map the American Civil War! Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about casualties

THE BATTLE OF RICHMOND IN KENTUCKY HAD MORE CASUALTIES THAN MILL SPRINGS. THANKS MICHAEL C MILNE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.148.54 (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. That erroneous claim has been there since 2005 and I never noticed it! Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Hello, Hlj. You have new messages at CWenger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–CWenger (^ • @) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goss

"A truly decisive battle must decide consequences beyond military issues of tactical importance and operational significance. A decisive battle must directly lead to a rapid resolution of the contested political issues because the results on the battlefield caused both sides to agree that a decision had been reached."

Second sentence, when fully interpreted, would say, "Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln exchanged telegrams on July 4, 1863, and agreed, the war is over with Jefferson Davis concluding, 'we were wrong all along and we reverse secession.'"

But you might need Juan to read the sentence to you. Let's talk to C3PO (within 7 days) before your paid gargoyle is activated.Donaldecoho (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preparatory salvo fired at BoG Talk page. I have been studying this issue for two years and have thousands of words prepared, all well-researched and completely sane, to enter into the discussion.Donaldecoho (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the talk page is the appropriate place to discuss this old issue if you must. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's Battle Plan

I noticed my edit introducing Lee's battle plan was undone, but I'm confused by the reason, which said "the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the main article, not a place to introduce opinions".

The citation described in detail how Lee had planned to attack the flanks to shift forces from the center, then attack a weakened center.

--SuperAnth (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(also sent via email...) The lead section of an article (the few paragraphs that appear before the table of contents or first section header) are supposed to be a summary of the cited material in the main text of the article. Thus, you don't introduce new, cited material in the lead section. If you want to include that cited material in the main part of the article, it can then be summarized in the lead. (In this case, in my humble opinion, this particular opinion by Troy Harman about Lee's previous battles does not warrant being summarized in the lead.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now I see. I didn't understand the opinion element because it was based on published work, not my own personal take on the battle. I'll edit accordingly. --SuperAnth (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Shepherdstown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Barnes (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) 09:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Perryville and 33rd Alabama Infantry

Hal, I've been following the edit war on the Battle of Perryville page and just finished talking with Kurt Holman, manager of the Perryville Battlefield. He writes:

"I have the 33rd with 380 guys to start with: 14 killed, 153 wounded, 0 missing, total of 167 or 44% casualties."

So the NPS citation that the other editor has been using is clearly incorrect.

Kurt has passed along his casualty numbers to me and I plan to start adding them to the Perryville Union order of battle and the Perryville Confederate order of battle.

Best wishes,

Spacini (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation, although I certainly would not have called it an editing war just yet. If that 82% had been correct, this regiment would be routinely cited along with the 26th North Carolina or the 1st Minnesota at Gettysburg. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

	Jedediah Hotchkiss		The Jedediah Hotchkiss Barnstar of Diligence
			I award you this unique barnstar to recognize and thank you for your outstanding, diligent map-making for many Wikipedia articles (and recently, for new books). Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of my limited ability, copying a prior template and patching something together is the best I could do, but it is well-intentioned. I thought giving you a unique barnstar along these lines would be appropriate. I thought I would do my best with the idea and use it to give you some recognition and thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are retired, if that is what you mean. On the other hand, I have seen what great shape you are in from your web site. Donner60 (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Howitzer

The Wikipedia cite for mountain howitzers has a picture at Gettysburg attributed to you and labled as a mountain howitzer. Are you sure it is not a 12 lb howitzer (788 lbs weight) and not a mountain howitzer (220 lbs weight)? We are unfamiliar with any mountain howitzer with dolphins. Bill Cossitt cossitt@sbcglobal.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.120 (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it has been probably a decade since I contributed any artillery photos, so I do not remember the one in question. What article and/or what image are you referring to? Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the poster meant the following image: [File:CW Arty Mountain Howitzer rear.jpg] This appears to be a 24-pounder howitzer imported by the CSA from Vienna Austria. (See p. 190 of Hazlett et al. Field Artillery Weapons of the Civil War for what appears to be an image of the same piece at Gettysburg NMP.) Another link with some video seems to show the same piece in the same position, with the same square stone/concrete at the right, with same fence to the front http://www.gettysburgdaily.com/gettysburg-artillery-part-2/ The key features that distinguish the Austrian piece in the image from the other 12 and 24 pdr howitzers under consideration is the combination of the circular dolphins, the lack of a chase band, and the cast protrusion at the base ring for sighting. What can't be seen (without a measurement in the image) is the much shorter barrel length of the Austrian piece compared to a U.S. 24 pdr Howitzer, the much lighter weight ~660 pounds vs. 1320 for the U.S. version, and the very slightly larger bore of the European made pieces. If you can confirm, you might want to change the file name and description so that it can be attached to the 24-pounders later. Red Harvest (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation and file name change. I've added the image to Field_artillery_in_the_American_Civil_War#Howitzers as that section did not have any images displayed. Red Harvest (talk)

Map information sources

Hi! I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination of George S. Greene article, and there seems to be one outstanding issue where you might be of assistance. The article employs two maps: Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Evening.png and Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Defenses.png - which look great. The Commons records indicate that you are the author of those two, but there appears to be no indication of source of information presented in the maps, i.e. it does not say what are they based upon - another map, a description of the defenses/attack or otherwise. At present, the Commons simply indicate "Engelsk wikipedia" as the source, which is not acceptable for GA per WP:CIRCULAR policy. Could you please comment at Talk:George S. Greene/GA1 page on the maps' source(s) or add information on the sourcing to the Commons. Thanks!--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I base my maps on a variety of primary and secondary sources. As such, I am a secondary source provider in my own right, widely published, and a citation to "map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com" is technically all you need. However, this citation is included within the "File:" page of Wikimedia, and is typically not shown directly in the articles that include the maps--you have to click on the image to see the citation. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Well, I trust that the maps are accurate, but the Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V) requires that information can be attributed to a reliable, published source. Self-published sources are generally not considered acceptable per WP:SPS. Now, I was scanning for possible publications of those maps, and found this book, containing a map (on p.185) attributed to you which generally looks just like the the Gettysburg Day2 Culp's Hill Evening.png. If you don't mind I'd like to add that ref to the Commons and thus provide source for that image.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the previous note. The WP:SPS does allow self-published sources for published experts, and the previously mentioned book, IMO duly establishes such circumstances. I'll check with MILHIST coords how exactly should the reference be handled, if anything is needed at all. Thanks for the help. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done over 200 maps for Wikipedia, including a number of Featured Articles, and no one has ever asked for this. Yes, Hoptak's book has a black and white copy of this Wikipedia map, but it is rather backwards to cite something that was copied from Wikipedia. FYI, I have professionally published over 1000 maps in (over 100) books, magazines, and websites, so I do not think that self-published is the appropriate way to look at my work. (I wrote this paragraph at the same time you were updating the page again.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to put down your work, and I accepted it is accurate in good faith. I apologize if I made any such impression. I'm surprised that nobody asked such a question at FA level though. I simply did not have the information you were published until you pointed that out for me. GA (as well as FA) review process is meant to enforce WP:V and WP:SPS as policies and a soon as I had the information that the WP:SPS exception (and thus WP:V requirement) is met, I was quite happy to accept the maps as needing no further references. Short of that information, I was compelled to request a reference per WP:V. Once again, I'm sorry if that came accross wrong. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I have been editing on Wikipedia for over 10 years and am familiar with most procedures. I long ago gave up any efforts to classify my articles as good/featured articles because you are subjected to the whims of random reviewers, who hold you hostage to get the sometimes arbitrary changes they would like to see. Since I don't care about the little GA/FA badges, I can reject with impunity anything I don't agree with. :-) The issue here is not whether I produce accurate work, it is whether I am considered a secondary source or not, because if I am, no further footnotes beyond my name and publication title are necessary. As a related example, if you had permission from the Civil War Trust to use one of their maps by Steve Stanley (which you do not), you would merely cite Civil War Trust in the Wikimedia page, not ask for footnotes about where they got the information in the map. Since I am a widely published cartographer now, I think I qualify as a secondary source. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation needed about Howard Hall at Bowdoin College

Here is a link to the Bowdoin College Map You will notice that Howard Hall is located at 19 South Street, Brunswick, Me. --Gomer Fackworth (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you are sending this to me. What article are you talking about? Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Port Hudson correction.

Thank you very much for the information. I intend to examine and correct the content as soon as possible. It is rare to receive constructive information. Needless to say I consider Port Hudson a fascinating and neglected campaign in the War in the West. Add as much as you can to the article. Frank Frank (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map correction on Port Hudson Article.

Yes, I constructed the original map image. Building up the image was a involved process however. Replacing the image with a corrected one would take some effort at this point. My big priority of the moment is putting on a play I wrote and will be performing tomorrow. "The show must go on!" and if it does not my political position will be tenuous since my wife is on the board of the organization sponsoring the play. In short I am going to wind up in the same boat as Hamlet if this thing bombs. Damn! That was her on the phone now. It is my hope to set up a better replacement for the map next week. Thanks once again for the inquiry. Frank (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Station

I am mindful of your authority as a Civil War editor, and I know that you have reacted to at least one of my errors with true Wiki civility.

But I feel I was justified in suggesting that ‘largest cavalry engagement of the American Civil War’ was a stronger statement of notability than ‘largest predominantly cavalry engagement’. Simply, it was the biggest assembly of cavalrymen in battle (though not by much) and the people who are most concerned with the precise categories would be more interested in the first one than the second.

I note that you cite ‘wording and stylistic formatting used in ACW battle articles’. I’m not sure what this refers to. Is there a page of specialist guidelines? If so, I would appreciate a link to it - though I hope I might be licensed to question its provisions. Valetude (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I must confess that I did not even look at the identity of the person making changes--just the compilation of changes over the period of time since I last looked--so sorry if I ruffled feathers. The language concerning the largest battle was selected specifically to balance it against claims that Trevilian Station was actually largest, a controversy described in the footnote. I would not object to alternative wording that said something like "the battle with the largest number of cavalrymen."

The changes that initially caught my eye were the deviations from the mostly standard template we use for the introduction to battles. I described this in my own personal style guide, User:Hlj/CWediting#Battles, which is not formally proscriptive, but represents the consensus of the large number of battle articles edited over the last decade. We don't use links in the battle names, we use standard American dates, we list the NPS alternative battle names in the first sentence. I hope this helps explain what I did. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request comment on name change "Siege of Fort Pulaski"

A few years ago you were the only commenter on changing the name of Battle of Fort Pulaski to "Siege of Fort Pulaski". You didn't disagree, but made note of what proper justification would be. I didn't see any other comments in the next few weeks, so I didn't make any change. Later another editor expanded the article as had been outlined and re-proposed making the same name change. By that time I was no longer watching the page or I would have agreed. So I'm re-proposing it now and thought it would be best to ask for your input. Thanks. Red Harvest (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Institute, 2014

I have read most of your Civil War Travelogues over the past few years but, as with some other things this year, I have fallen a little behind. I just read and thoroughly enjoyed your report on the 2014 CWI conference. I will spare you lengthy comments but I will note that some of your summaries were right on point and that you included a few details that I had not known or thought about. Your note about Wikipedia near the end brought to mind the problem of keeping POV pushers from taking over articles, which seems to be a continuing problem, especially with the more general topics. I thought you would like to know about an appreciative reader. Donner60 (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]