User talk:Hlj/archive2009

Happy New Years!

Happy New Years!
May your glass ne'er be empty...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Civil War Traveler links

You are probably a better judge of which links to revert/add back in, although I think/hope some of the links I removed weren't significantly related to the articles. If you want, I can take a crack at them. Flowanda | Talk 21:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Page views

Here is a tool which shows how many times a given Wikipedia page (including templates) has been viewed over a given period. If you're not already aware of the tool, I thought you might find it helpful. Runs slow; especially slow today. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cat

The Campaigns and theaters of the ACW category was created back in May 2007 by Roger Davies. I thought that this category was for campaign articles (such as Maryland Campaign) while the Campaigns category was for the campaign battles categories (such as the Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign category). If these categories are duplicates, should the campaigns and theaters category be nominated for deletion? Wild Wolf (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

changing the name of an image

New Years Greetings! In response to your request, in attempting to do so, I have learned that "pages in the image or category namespace cannot be moved [and hence, not renamed]. To change the name of an image, one needs to upload it again, and copy the image description." Hal, it would be best if you do this yourself and then delete the earlier one which is named incorrectly. If you need me to, I will attempt to do all that, but frankly, you are more likely to accomplish it without and error in the licensing, etc. Please let em know if you want me to do anything more. Mark Vaoverland (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pic of the Boy General

Hal-- Found a pic of BG Francis C. Barlow wearing the checkered "lumberjack" shirt in question, and a long enlisted man's cavalry sabre (instead of the officer's sabre). It looks like it came from a publication of Mutual of New York (MONY) Insurance Company, which was bought out by AXA-Equitable. I think it can be considered fair use, but not sure. At any rate, you seem to know about this, and I have a pic of it. So, if you would like to view, send me a note to patsheeran123@yahoo.com and I'll scan and send back to you. 67.241.79.20 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Mobile Bay

Hi, Hal:

1. Concerning the citation request for Page's condemnation of his subordinates: The opinion that he should have been more understanding cannot be documented, as it is my own. I suppose you can regard that as an inadmissible point of view; if so, remove it. I do not think it is necessary to the article.

2. You will note that I keep adding things to the article, so my editing is not complete. You may wish to delay evaluation until I think it is through, when I intend to request peer review. The remaining big problem is the Order of Battle, which I left standing from the original article, but differs from my sources. The OOBs for the navies are OK, but those for the armies are not. My army sources are not very profound (I pretty much have to rely on Battles and leaders- see vol. 4, p. 400 - and the Official Records), so I am waiting for another book to come in that I hope will resolve issues. If you have reliable information, I will not complain if you beat me to the punch. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I guess you understand that inserting your own POV is not allowed. I am surprised that you could not find a secondary source with a similar opinion to cite directly. If you would like to mark an article that you are upgrading over a brief period of time, take a look at WP:TMAIN. On orders of battle, I don't actually have any good sources for this battle. I tend to stick to land battles myself. My suggestion would be that you follow the lead of most of the major battle article in the ACW space and create a separate subarticle for the OOB. Check out Gettysburg, Wilderness, Second Bull Run, etc. I personally do not think that these long tabular sections fit with the style of an encyclopedia article about a battle. You also repeat most of the ship information in the main text of the article anyway, I think. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hal. Thank you for the rapid response. I am just going to eliminate the offending paragraph. --- As for shifting Order of Battle, I confess I had not even thought of it. It was there, and I just left it in. Moving it will improve this article, and doing the same to a couple of others I have worked on will improve them also. Of course, the problem of its accuracy will remain, although shifted to a different article. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Signal Corps

David H. Miller and Mark J. Stegmaier, James F. Milligan: His Journal of Fremont's Fifth Expedition, 1853-1854; His Adventurous Life on Land and Sea, Arthur H. Clark Co., 1988. 300 pp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgnlco (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Confederate Army

Good day sir! I know you have been knee-deep in Chattanooga stuff, but I has wondering if you have the time would you look at two pages I've been working on. User:Kresock/sandbox/CS Regular Army‎ is my attempt on the ACSA in my user space, and List of Confederate Regular Army officers, on which I've done up to 'D'. I also plan to do the PACS afterward. This spawned from my overflowing disappointment with the existing Confederate States Army article, and perhaps a fresh start is the way to go. Any thoughts or suggestions are quite welcome. Kresock (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, in my humble opinion it would be better to improve the existing CSA article than to create two separate articles. Although our friends the Eichers have gone into a lot of technical detail about the formation of the Regular Army, there is almost no notice paid of this distinction in any mainstream literature about the war. (That is not entirely true on the Union side, however, since there were units organized entirely of regulars. Furthermore, the U.S. Army significantly preceded and followed the war, so is worth tracking separately.) As to the two articles you have started, my comments are:

• It would be better to name the regular army article Army of the Confederate States of America. Using a rule of thumb in Wikipedia, no one would ever deliberately search on the term "CS Regular Army."
• I think that a listing of every ACSA officer includes way too many non-notable entries. There are very few officers below the rank of colonel who are notable and it would be probably better to have a consolidated article that listed the status of the senior officers in both of the armies, rather than separating them. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. I planned to name the regular page as such (just gave it a generic name in my user space) as I did on the listing page intro. I probably will have Confederate States Regular Army redirect to it. I found a book detailing the regulars and was inspired, and the CS Army page we now have really bothers me. Any problem with me linking the finished page in the Confederate States Army article for now?

I'm not done with the listing page yet; I plan to make it collapsible so it won't be too unwieldy. I believe if I can at least find out some info on them they should be listed, such as died in combat, last unit, etc. Once this is done I probably will prune out the non-notables as you suggest. Maybe I should have left it my user space, huh? Again thanks for the thoughts. Kresock (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking bots

Hi Hal, I saw your edit summary here and started to install the script to do it but there is a temporary injunction against using them from ArbCom while that case is being heard. I didn't want you to think you were being ignored...:)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got the script installed to do the job now and hope to stay abreast of the ArbCom case looking for a green or red light. Personally, I'm in favor of delinking dates..cleans up the code that we are trying to edit. I've looked at the diffs (without saving) on List of American Civil War battles and the number of changes is quite substantial. Neat tool!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dalton battles

Hal, You make a valid point about consensus names of battles that had not occurred to me (though perhaps it was belatedly beginning to dawn on me as I did some additional Google work). So, as you suggested, I have changed the page about August 1864 back to "Second Battle of Dalton," but have still tried to add info to the disambiguation page "Battle of Dalton." BTW, on a different subject, I have noticed your excellent maps in the Sherman article. But did he take Atlanta on Sept 2, instead of Sept 1? It is my understanding that Hood evacuated on Sept 1, and federal forces entered on Sept 2. Hartfelt (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jones-Imboden Raid

Hi, I was surprised that there was no article on this raid so I created it. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at it. I double checked the information in several sources and I think it is accurate. Thanks, Dubyavee (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the help, I appreciate your taking the time, I'm not a very good technical person. I hope to get a map on the page too. Best, Dubyavee (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War

Category:Battles of the Operations Against Major Confederate Cities 1862 of the American Civil War, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen D. Lee

Good day Hal! Just finished adding to his article. If it looks good to you I'll flick him off of your to do - bios list on your user page. Kresock (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy! Looks very good at first glance. You're doing very reliable work that I don't feel the need to watch closely anymore (unlike some of our other colleagues :-)). Feel free to update my to-do list without asking on efforts like this. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You got it, and thanks for the kind words as well. Kresock (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War

Noticed you have edited American Civil War articles before. Could you take a look at this article I wrote. I am working to improve it to G.A. status. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply on my Talk page, to keep everything in one place.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping!--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done It passed to GA status. Thanks for all your help.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

John McCausland project

I am the leader of group that is restoring Historic Fairfax House(circa:1839)in Rock Hill (a St. Louis suburb) Missouri. I believe that the wife of the builder is related to your John McCausland. James collier Marshall dob:1804 built Fairfax. He a militia man from the Virginia Tidewater region and he married Elizabeth Mc Causland here in St. Louis in September 1840. She was born in Ireland circa 1814 and lived in Clayton Missouri and was a sister to the Mrs. ralph Clayton. I believe she is/was the aunt of your John McCausland and I would like to establish that link. What I have found so far does not provide me with enough detail to make this link but local legend has it that she was his aunt. Fairfax, their lifelong home still stands on an incredibly historic piece of property having next to it the lst Presbyterian church Marshall built in 1845. He was later banned from the church circa 1860/61 because of a violent disagreement over slavery with the then minister of the church. I have tried to do research on John McCausland but don't find anything to make the connection. Can you comment?

Thank you. Donia Hunter, Chair Fairfax Restoration Incorporated 1fairmaid@gmail.com or dhunter@stlouisco.com

Notes/refs

Good Afternoon good sir, Thanks for the comment. The reflist template should actually be under the references heading rather than notes. The footnotes template should be under notes. I will try and watch the multiple references section issue. Please let me know if you notice anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First I want to say that I think you do a great job in most respects when improving and updating the ACW articles. I work almost exclusively with American military biographies because so many of them need work but you seem to have a wider understanding of ACW history in general and I understand you would become somewhat defensive when another editor meddles in your edits. Judging by the tone of your comment though and comments I have received from you previously I wanted to clarify that YOU do not OWN these articles and you do not have to CLEAN UP AFTER ME, you choose to use a different style, which does not require changing, its your choice. With that said, as you stated, there are a number of accepted styles, you choose to use one for the ACW articles and I use a different one; they are both right and I concede that, but why would you put a references template under notes. It doesn't even make sense, its like putting Windows on a MAC, you can do it, but why? Its just confusing. If we want to put the reflist under the notes section as footnotes, then we should use the footnotes template vice the reflist template. I prefer to put the reflist template under references (because that is more intuitive to the title and purpose) and either combine the additional references with the template (depending on the number) or add a section for notes with the additional references that are not part of the reflist template text. I checked the MILHIST Task Force as you suggested and the WP Style guide and the only thing I see is somethingn you wrote saying what you do. Some of which is not in accordance with WP policies and simply how Hal chooses to do it. I also recommend reviewing your style guide, there are a number of changes in policy that are not addressed or differ from what you have (for example mentioning the persondata template and the placement of portals under the see also section as per WP guidelines). I recommend that the next time you want to jump down another editors throat and punch your way out because of an edit that you think is incorrect it would be a good idea to check your own house first. --Kumioko (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas edits

Hello, Hal. I don't understand why you reverted my edits re Thomas, which seem appropriate to me. Basically, one edit tried to make the page look better graphically. The other calls attn to a tribute that Sherman wrote about Thomas -- in the memoriam section. The addition is relevant and, I would think would be of interest to those studying Thomas, esp those who think Sherman was unfair to him. Sherman's point was that Thomas is more deserving of admiration than Robert E. Lee. Anyway, I don't want to be obstreporous, but would appreciate enlightenment as to what's wrong with the edits you reverted. Hartfelt (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Hal. Thank you for your response. (1) Yes, I did mean to say "hello" and not to be obnoxious in any way. (2) I appreciate your substantive response. (3) It seems to me that the live link to Google Books is good (fine in the footnote) because it allows people to look at the article itself and see what Sherman actually had to say. Much more useful, it seems to me, than just a citation to such an old article which most people would never track down. BTW, I don't really understand how the talk function works, but I assume you will see this. Again, thanks for the dialogue and apologies for my typo. Hartfelt (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I have made an edit to the Thomas page, footnote 8, in response to your observation. I hope it will clear up the confusion I created. That item on Google Books reproduces the entirety of Sherman's 1877 article from North American Review. Hartfelt (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Just wanted to let you know I followed thru on your suggestion of inserting a quote from the Sherman article. Hartfelt (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

battle of corydon

can you hold off a second on edits- I need to merge the edits you made. Our edits clashed. About 10 minutes... OK? -J JMesserly (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

All done now. I think I moved over all your changes, but you might want to check it over. Thanks. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Sherman page be semi-protected?

Hal: I have long wondered if the Sherman page should be semi-locked, to avoid the large amount of vandalism. I posted this question on the Sherman page discussion, but no one ever responded. I notice that the Lincoln and Grant pages are semi-locked. What do you think? Has this ever been considered in the past? (I have no idea how to semi-lock or even how to propose it formally but I thought that you might.) Hartfelt (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Thanks for the link you provided ystdy. I suggested semi-protection, and it has been granted for 2 weeks. Lincoln and Grant seem to have permanent semi-protection. Hartfelt (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Spencer Photo

Hello HlJ, A half hour ago, I tried to load a Spencer carbine picture of a period 1865 Model, it was impossible to place it. Now I find your picture with a new one. Question: is it a original one or an italian copy? If it's a copy, may I change it? Most pictures I placed (Henry, Winchies, Colts especially on the German DE Wiki) are originals.Yourshmaag (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

John Buford Death Reference

Myles Keogh: The Life and Legend of an "Irish Dragoon" in the Seventh Cavalry, John P. Langellier, Kurt Hamilton Cox, Brian C. Pohanka, 1998, ISBN 0-912783-21-4.

I thought Buford's bio was a little short for someone of his reputation hence the added on bits!

Best wishes,

Doyle1876

[1]

Doyle1876 (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi !

hello : i have redraw your map File:ACW Chattanooga2Carolinas.png into SVG File:ACW Chattanooga2Carolinas-fr.svg (and translate it into french by the way)... but i was wondering why there was 2 BLUE lines from Savannah to Raleigh : shouldn't one of them be red as i think it might be Johnston Hood's army ? i dunno...

And... a huge thanks for your great free work ! --Lilyu (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Joseph E Johnston Dalton GA.jpg

File:Joseph E Johnston Dalton GA.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Joseph E Johnston monument in Dalton GA.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Joseph E Johnston monument in Dalton GA.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Fort Donelson river battery.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Fort Donelson river battery (1).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Stones River Battlefield limestone.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Stones River Battlefield limestone (1).jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ely S. Parker.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ely S. Parker.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:William B. Franklin.jpg is now available as Commons:File:William B. Franklin enh.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sheridan staff.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Sheridan staff,1864.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

File:John T Wilder monument Chickamauga.jpg is now available as Commons:File:John T Wilder monument Chickamauga.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Waud Chickamauga.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Waud Chickamauga.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:CW Arty Mountain Howitzer rear.jpg is now available as Commons:File:CW Arty Mountain Howitzer rear.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:John Alexander McClernand.jpg is now available as Commons:File:John Alexander McClernand.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally got a start on Wilson-Kautz Raid

Needed an article to go with your nice map. Just started. See if you can knock away all the chaff before I get too far. BusterD (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Two battle of Gainesville

Hal,

Let's have a discussion on the Battle(s) of Gainesville. The numbers of soldiers involved in both battles numbered in the hundreds. In the more northern theaters of war, neither of these would have been battles, just skirmishes. Even the Battle of Olustee, Florida, which had about 5,000 troops on each side would have been considered skirmishes in the northern theaters. So, the way I see it, either both engagements in Gainesville were battles, or both were skirmishes. A memorial sign in downtown Gainesville was erected long ago by the Daughters of the Confederacy on the second engagement, listing it as "The Battle of Gainesville." The first engagement is not mentioned as the DOC were not in the habit of erecting memorial signs for Union victories. I do not want to get into our own battle, but it seems we need to agree on something here. The first time I corrected the page, someone who was not registered changed it back, so I changed it again. You are registered so I feel that we should discuss this.Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary

Do we have an automated-edit-using editor who's decided to just stick these in for completeness' sake? Did I miss all this? BusterD (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

brevets

Hello there! Thanks for the note and links. I've often wondered if we are better off sticking to actual regular ranks. I ran into a usage issue yesterday with Emory Upton, trying to explain it through edit summaries. Personally I'd rather not use brevets just mention them as occuring, and editing Confederate officers is just easier because they didn't employ them. I ran into the corps issue on Charles Pomeroy Stone's page when he commanded a division called a 'Corps of Observation'. Work has me swamped as it always does around holidays, but I'll look into it when I can. Glad you brought this up. Kresock (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that we do much different with the biography articles themselves, other than avoiding the terms "honorary" and "breveted." (In the latter case it would be more accurate to say, for instance, "he was promoted to [or appointed] brevet major general of volunteers.") It is the Wikipedia article on brevets that needs major surgery. The problem is that laws and regulations make the brevet ranks seem quite important in certain theoretical circumstances, but I get the impression that the vast number of brevets were actually given out in 1865, many backdated to correspond with important battles from earlier years, so they really had little practical impact beyond pats on the back. I am not advocating removing the brevets from the articles; I think we have been going in the correct direction by explicitly indicating brevet in the boxes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hal for the clarification I obviously needed it. Up to this point I've used brevetted instead of commissioned a lot (which is how they differed in my mind) and this is quite wrong. I see what you're talking about on the Brevet page, where the intro states these were temporary ranks only, and goes on to say it lacked any authority.

From the link you gave and the work by the Eichers, this is how I would now consider the term: brevet promotions held authority only outside their unit, beyond the regimental level (where seniority rules and it would be only honorary) and that an assignment by the President/War Dept. is required for it to have meaning and effect; that they were approved by the U.S. Senate just like regular commissions; that they received the pay corresponding to the rank; that they received a billet corresponding to the rank when one was available available; and according to President Jackson a "regular general" ranks a "'brevetted general" regardless of effective dates. Do I have this right? This does not jive with the Brevet article at all, and I'll correct it when I'm done with Huger's page after Easter.

As for your comment about the late-war promotions, for all those who were made brevet brigadiers on 13 March, 1865, (a slew of them occured on that date as the Eichers point out) these men held honorary titles unless assigned a posting requiring a brigadier. So as far as I can tell, brevets during the CW were rewards for the most part, not having much effect at all, unlike their use in Mexico. With this deeper understanding, my use of "brevetted" is not correct, and I'll start using something like "Joe Blow was appointed a brevet major general in the Union Army/U.S. Army" as they apply. I have also been replacing "of volunteers" with "in the Union Army" whenever I see them, and adding "in the U.S. Army" for regular army promotions; this is mainly due to your style guide as well as to clarify. Please let me know if you have a problem with this. Good day sir! Kresock (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And this is pure gold! Kresock (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! I think you are absolutely right about the can of worms that would be opened, and I greatly prefer small edits to the existing bios to reflect what we've learned. I am gonna clarify those listed on my user page first, finish with Huger, then attack the Brevet page. Any other bios we can edit as we usually do, as they come within our sights so to speak. I believe you are correct about the pay, such a brevet officer getting it only when acting in that capacity outside their "home" unit. I only intend to change the U.S. portions of the Brevet page if that's cool with you. The country sections probably should be alphabetized, and I was tossing around the idea to pipe directly to the U.S. part, something like:

[ [  Brevet (military)#United States|brevet  ] ]  

but not sure if it's worth it. Seems unnecessary to me unless the Brevet article grows significantly. Maybe down the road? Good day, Hal!. Kresock (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure your clarifying comment about pay is correct. The pay is not related to the home unit, it is whether you are acting to fulfill the responsibilities of the higher grade. A concrete example is West Point graduates who were brevet second lieutenants. Those guys were given brevets because there were not a sufficient number of second lieutenant commissions available, but I am sure that they were paid for that rank when they were assigned to a unit. And a Col. who is given a brevet to Brig. Gen. would be paid in that grade if he were assigned as a brigade commander. You know, the one thing I have not been able to figure out and maybe you have found it is whether the brevet promotion came with the uniform rank insignia. On March 13, 1865, did all of these guys rush out and get new shoulder boards or was it entirely a paperwork exercise? On the link, I don't see the need to redirect to the United States portion. If the article got long enough that that was necessary, I would hope we could come up with a link such as "brevet (ACW)" or "brevet (USA)" that would redirect appropriately. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I also am not sure of the uniforms, or for that matter how they were addressed or signed their name. The vast majority of those fellows I've gotten pics for are depicted in their last non-brevet rank. When Bragg resigned, was he wearing straps showing the two bars of a captain, or the light oak leaf of a lt. colonel by way of brevet? Winfield Scott was a three-star brevet for years; any pics of him in a lieutenant general's uniform? James B. Fry, the author of the brevet book you linked, used the form name, reg. rank and position/assignment, brevet rank and I wonder if this was typical of the Civil War period. If so, can you imagine their business cards? Check out his comments on p. 13 as to the uniforms, pay, etc. as of 1877:

The latest laws on the subject, retroactive in their operation, supplementing those cutting off all pay and allowances, forbid officers in their official capacities from wearing the uniform or being addressed by the titles of their brevet grades. That is to say, having received these rewards, of no pecuniary value whatever, for gallant, distinguished, or meritorious services to the nation, the receipt of which is acknowledged in the certificate, the recipient of the reward is forbidden to make the usual exhibition of it... It may therefore be said that this inducement provided by the laws of the United States, as a special reward for gallant, distinguished or meritorious conduct on the part of officers of the army, has become almost valueless.

Another thing I've been unsure of is when those brevet second lieutenants are made second lieutenants, is this transaction considered a promotion or an additional commission? Kresock (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Downed links

The photos I've seen of Scott look more like a hotel doorman and I couldn't guess how his rank is displayed. :-) I went to http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/ to find some photos, but the site is down today.

Here's a site I just found with some info: http://www.alia.org.au/~kwebb/Brevets/

The quote you found is interesting. Without reading the full 200+ pages, it's hard to tell what was in effect during the war--these regs changed over the years. Perhaps the 1877 law was written to change an abused practice.

The step from Bvt 2LT to 2LT is a new commission document and Eicher usually lists the event and date. (I generally use the verb 'appoint' or 'promote' for any action following the first 'commission', but the certificate signed by the President says 'commission' each time.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott as a brevet lt. general?

The generals and brevets sites (where I found lots of my uploaded pics) have been dead for at least three weeks now. BusterD found the archived links and re-added them to this page List of American Civil War generals last week, an article undergoing much change as we speak. Here they are for your benefit:

• The Brevet Generals of the American Civil War, accessed from Archive.org, April 9, 2009
• The Generals of the American Civil War, accessed from Archive.org, April 9, 2009

I looked through the images that made it into the archive and found the one to the right, showing his three stars. However, I cannot determine exactly when it was taken in the 1847-61 range he held the rank. Most of his other photos show him in either dress uniforms or after he retired. In some of them he looks quite scary to me, in others as you might say "Do I tip him?" I'll fully read the 200 page document before working on the Brevet page anyway. I also took this opportunity to add a sub-section heading for easier navigation as we converse. Good day sir! Kresock (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, the archive.org links are down right now also. BTW, if you'd like to do any of this sort of discussion in email, I have that interface enabled on my user page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there! Strange, because the links just worked for me a second ago, around midnight my time. About those three stars, didn't the regs allow the commanding general of the entire army to wear them, even as a major general? I seem to remember McClellan sporting a fancier strap with the three stars when he held the position. I was gonna put this pic on the Brevet page, but now I'm not sure it depicts a brevet rank. The generalsandbrevets page just for brevets has this to say:

Nearly 1,400 Federal officers were appointed to the rank of brevet general, brigadier or major, during the American Civil War. A brevet has been defined as "a commission conferring upon an officer a grade in the army additional to and higher than that which, at the time it is bestowed, he holds by virtue of his commission in a particular corps of the legally established military organization". It makes him eligible for assignment to duty at the rank it confers, but without such assignment by the President it has no effect on the officers status with respect to pay, emoluments and seniority.

I find the "has been defined" part troubling, but I suspect the regs greatly changed over the years from the Revolution to War of 1812 to Mexico to the ACW and afterward. A breakdown of these conflicts as they relate to brevet use will likely be required on the Brevet page, describing the effect, pay, authority, and if we can figure it out the uniform and titles, for each period. Good day! Kresock (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award.  Roger Davies talk 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

List of American Civil War generals

Thanks, I have also been working on a consolidated list although I haven't done much with it for a while. I still need to fill in a lot of data but please let me know what you think.--Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg: Controversies

I'm considering putting together a list of all of the controversies about the Battle of Gettysburg. I've come up with the following outline. If you have the time and inclination, can you please let me know if I'm missing a controversy? I would also appreciate ANY input. Thanks.

I. Mission of Heth: Shoes, or Something Else?

II. Why Did Longstreet Fail to Launch an Early 7/2/1863 Attack?

III. Was Sickles Where He Was Supposed to Be & Did It Make Any Difference?

IV. Did Ewell Err In Not taking Cemetery/Culps Hills?

V. Was Picket’s Charge Supported As Lee Intended?

VI. Who Ordered the Charge of the 20th Maine Regiment: Melcher or Chamberlin?

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Gainesville

Hal,

I edited the first section of the Battle of Gainesville to include the text from Seymour's General Orders about the victory won by the Mass. Mounted Infantry. I've been either real sick or busy at work but now I hope to add a number of Official Records to my Battle of Olustee Web site that I uncovered when looking for Seymour's order for Gainesville. I just finished reading Nothing But Victory about the Army of the Tennessee which I really enjoyed, and have just started Confederate Emancipation about southern policy towards the slaves and black freemen during the war. I also dug out two or three books that spend all or some of the text covering Civil War rations. One I have yet to read, but I plan to use them to add to the page on Foods of the American Civil War. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Civil War Horses

Hey! I was looking at your list of American Civil War Horses, and as I'm working on the article for the novel about Traveller_(novel), before I go adding the dozen or so warhorses in the novel, I wonder if you'd be able to verify them. Like...was General George Picket's horse really named Romeo, and so forth. And I noticed Skylark and Star of the East aren't listed on there as JEB Stuart's horses, though Skylark is treated as his primary mount in the novel. Anyway, if you look at the article there's a list of the horses and the men they purportedly belong to. Since the rest of the book is so meticulously researched, I have little reason to believe those horses didn't really belong to those men, but I don't want to be stepping on anyone's toes here. Blah blah blah, etc, have a nice day. XD;; Zekiw (talk) 06:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gettysburg Controversies

Ok, so much for that idea.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Fort Pillow

I added a reference from US Grants memoirs about Fort Pillow, I was a bit surprised that no mention of it was in there (having just read the book(s)). Is there a particular reason its NOT in there? If so, you might want to revert the page. Either way, I'm curious to hear about it.Windsagio (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

question about the battle of gettysburg?

in the article on this site it says that the union forces were out numbered. But then in the chart to the right shows that the union army was 93,921 men, and the confederacy only had 71,699 men. which is correct why does it say this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenbrooklynn (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

reply to your reply

nuh uh!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenbrooklynn (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Halleck/Grant suggestions

Hal, I have tried to address your points about my Halleck and Grant edits on those pages, including info posted on the Halleck discussion page. I hope the changes and info I have posted are sufficient to meet your concerns. Please advise. Hartfelt (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Halleck response

Hal, Thanks very much for your quick response and for your info. I am satsified that I have much improved what was in the Halleck article before (e.g., removing the error about two relief orders and clarifying the overall context) even if I am wrong on the narrow Lincoln point. On that point, look at the slippery language those authors use -- Halleck mysteriously got wind of Lincoln's desires before he heard from Lincoln? How exactly did that happen, especially in such a short time frame? Anyway, if you believe a change should be made on Lincoln's influence, I can only suggest that you go ahead and make the change you consider appropriate, as I have no idea what should be said. Thanks again. (When I have a chance, I will try to look at some other secondary sources. But I don't see why we must bow to secondary sources as gospel when, for example, Stephen Ambrose says something that simply cannot be true (Halleck sent Grant back into the field (on March 13) because of Smith's March 12 leg injury (which was only reported in a slow-moving letter sent March 14)). Cheers, and my compliments on your vigilance and many contributions. Hartfelt (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Just an extra thought that occurred to me to illustrate why secondary sources can't be gospel even w/in the Wikipedia mission. Accordingly to the secondary source rule, one could say "Some authors believe that Halleck restored Grant to field comand because of a prod from Lincoln. In fact, Stepehen Ambrose has shown that Halleck restored Grant because Charles F. Smith had suffered a debilitating leg injury that disqualified him from command." That would be the blind (Ambrose) debating the vision-impaired (as I see things). It seems to me that Wikipedia contributors have to have some room for judgment. Hartfelt (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Smith on Halleck/Grant

Hal: Please note that Smith seems to support me, not the others. Page177-78: "Halleck's timely reinstatement of Grant preceded by one day the bombshell that landed on his desk . . ." Hartfelt (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Stoneman's Raid

Hi Hal,

I need a hand with the Stoneman's Raid article that I have just expanded. The vast majority of the quotes come from the Official Records but I still have to figure out how to cite references in an article! Let me know what I need to do the enhance it any further. talk(talk) 09:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Shiloh map

Hi, Hal. Was just looking at your Shiloh map, and it occurred to me that peraps it could be improved by showing Savannah, Corinth, and the Mississippi-Alabama border and state names. In case you haven't noticed, I have linked three of your maps (Atlanta, March to Sea, Carolinas campaign) into the work I've been doing on the Army of the Tennessee article. Hartfelt (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick (slick technology?). If you don't mind another suggestion, two of the red lines are labeled with a commander's name but one is not. Causes me to wonder who led the third column, so that might be a worthwhile addition. Hartfelt (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One last thought. Might be worth noting St. Louis as Halleck HQ. Hartfelt (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Another "last thought," about scale. As you know, it was 9 miles from Savannah to Pittsburg Landing and 20 or more miles from PL to Corinth. As it stands now, the map gives a different impression; that PL was closer to Corinth than to Savannah. (I notice that Henry and Donelson appropriately appear close together; maybe too close?) Anyway, am very impressed by your maps and your ability to edit them. Hartfelt (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I'm sorry to have proceeded piecemeal. It was unintentional, but next time I comment on a map I'll try to learn from this experience. Anyway, my hat's off to your mapping efforts. Hartfelt (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Map of Carolina Campaign

Hi, Hal.

Since linking your Carolinas Campaign map into the AOT article, I have noticed that it has less detailed info than your other maps tend to have and (from my understanding) creates some incorrect impressions. My recent work on the AOT article has suggested to me some possible improvements. Here they are for your consideration: Per your recent request, I have tried to gather them in one place.

(1) Some dates would be helpful. Feb 1 was the beginning of the march from Savannah "in force"; Columbia, SC, was Feb 17; the Battle of Bentonville was March 19-21. Sherman rendezvoused with Schofield at Goldsboro on March 23; Sherman took Raleigh on April 13; Johnston surrendered at Durham Station on April 26.

(2) I think it would be useful if the map distinguished sharply between Sherman's ops (on the one hand) and Schofield's XXIII Corps operations (on the other). To my understanding, Schofield arrived by sea at Wilmington and later stayed behind in NC; perhaps a dotted blue line for Schofield would be useful to indicate the distinction. Schofield took Wilmington on Feb 23. (Terry took Fort Fisher on Jan 15.) As noted above, Schofield's rendezvous with Sherman was at Goldsboro on Mar 23. (At present, the map implies a rendezvous at Fayetteville.)

(3) After the Sherman-Schofield rendezvous, the move from Goldsboro on Raleigh was three-pronged -- Howard on right, Schofield in center, and Slocum on left. (At present, the map shows two arrows.) Sherman entered Raleigh on April 13.

(4) Lastly, for the Union, it seems to me that there should be only two arrows leading up into Virginia -- Howard and Slocum. The XIII Corps under Schofield stayed behind. (At present, the map shows three arrows.)

(5) On the Confederate side, it would be helpful to annotate the dotted red arrows. Plus, to show Johnston at Bentonville and withdrawing to the Raleigh area prior to surrendering.

Hope the foregoing is of some help if and when you're inclined to revise the map. Hartfelt (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for confusion on Sherman's March

Thanks for fixing the dates on Sherman's March to the Sea -- I found the dates altered by an anonymous IP earlier today, did a quick search on the web (not having books handy at work), and erroneously concluded that he'd left Atlanta in September. My bad, and I'm glad you caught it. Sorry for screwing it up. Agathman (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee -- A-Class Review

Hal, Knowing that you have contributed in the past to the Army of the Tennessee page as an ditor, I wanted to let you know that I have now listed it for an A-Class review. As it stands now, the article uses four or your marvelous maps. Also, you asked that I send specific suggestions for the Carolinas Campaign map, which I will try to do before long. Cheers, Hartfelt (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Thanks for your quick response. Glad your basic reaction is positive and will take your suggestions in tow. I will be interested to see what else people have to say, as this is the first time I've requested an A-Class review. Hartfelt (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Demonstration (military)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Demonstration (military), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

wikipedia is not a dictionary

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Freely licensed images

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view previous uploads by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'file' namespace from the drop down box (or see [2]). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrations

Thanks very much for sorting that out. I know that wp is not a bulletin board (etc) but I just wanted to add that I was there last week, and thought it was absolutely terrific - very impressive and interesting indeed. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

oops, just saw the deletion thingy. I have objected and will object further if need be. I really cannot see the problem. Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I prod'd this article because it appears to be little more than a dictionary definition. Can it be expanded further with more citations referenced?--RadioFan (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Image deletion warning

I've tagged File:St. John's Church Columbia TN.jpg, which you uploaded, for deletion for lack of evidence of permission. You've stated that someone other than you uploaded the image, but you haven't provided evidence of that permission. Would you be willing/able to contact the copyright holder and provide permission? Unless you can provide evidence of this permission, the file will be deleted in one week. If you have any questions, please leave a note at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that email is what you needed. Could you email him again and ask him to send permission again? If you do and if he does, forward the permission email to
permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org and it will be archived. Nyttend (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, no problem. Thanks for resolving the situation! Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the photo from the pages where it was listed because it had no evidence: since you've added the new version, I've restored it. It's now being used at National Register of Historic Places listings in Maury County, Tennessee, as well as where it was before. Since you got a picture of this site, by the way, would you be willing/able to get photos for other sites on that Maury County list? Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well...I misunderstood you to mean that you ran out and got a picture of it after this permission question came up. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ship movements map

I am currently working on the American Capture of Guam article, and I need more multimedia for it. I've seen your work on Civil war tactical maps and I was wondering if you could make one for me like one of those, except, this one would show the ship movements across the pacific. If you did this I would really appreciate it. The ships movement are written in the article. Bernstein2291 (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.

Hi. I notice on Talk:Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr. that you are a major contributor to the article. I've been going through Kentucky governor articles trying to raise them to at least GA status, and I'm more or less up to Buckner. You may have noticed that I recently made several expansions to the article regarding mainly his political and personal life. I left intact most of the military stuff, as my sources on that aren't as good. Any chance you'd be willing to add some inline citations for the still-uncited parts of the article? I assume you added much of that information originally and have a better idea where it came from. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I happen to own Borderland Knight. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding cites from the sources not available online. I'll try to comb the ones that are for more information, and it looks like BusterD is willing to pitch in as well. I was really afraid I wouldn't be able to get this to GA due to lack of sources, but I feel confident that I can now, thanks to your help. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the lead. I usually like to save that part for last. That way, I don't miss anything important in composing the lead, and I can distill the article down into the most important parts. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Orphaned 140th Pennsylvania Infantry

I was reading this article about the 140th and discovered it was "orphaned" -- although it has a lot of links, not many pages link to it. In looking at the article on Chancellorsville, it seemed that this is one place to add a link -- and then, I was looking for the order of battle, and didn't find it. Will you be adding one? --Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you give a new creation a look?

I know this is off your beaten path. I was about to write stubs on the three John Surratt trial defense attorneys, when I stumbled on the father and grandfather of two of them. Abraham Bradley, Jr. was quite an enormous influence on the national life in the early 1800's and I'd never heard of the guy. Lots of data out there, but no picture I can find. Could you give this work a good once over? I'm going to build it up a bit and send it to GA noms. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the look and touch up. I realize Bradley's a pretty early figure for our normal field of interest. I was thinking the cartographer in you might find kindred spirit in Bradley. I was reading "American Brutus" recently, and I've been pondering the national hysteria caused by Lincoln's death. The trial of John Surratt differed mightily from the 1865 trial of the original conspirators, mostly because public and political tempers were way down and because Surratt had decent representation. The lead attorney Joseph H. Bradley was quite a figure (think Kunstler or Dershowitz), but it seems his father (and even grandfather) were pretty impressive individuals themselves. I sometimes find working on figures for which I don't have particular intrinsic interest is excellent exercise. My personal writing has benefited enormously. BusterD (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker

We just had an edit conflict and I unwittingly reverted several of your changes. I'm still in the process of writing up the section, perhaps you could hold off until I finish so to avoid conflicts, I'll drop a note here, and you can have your way with it? Cheers! Madcoverboy (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all done with the military service section. Fire away! Madcoverboy (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Walker also has a GAC open but no one has contributed as of yet. Is there a way to do this in the context of MILHIST assessment? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for your Carolinas Campaign map

Hal,

You asked for my specific suggestions about improving your Carolinas Campaign map. Here they are.

(1) Show date February 1 where blue line crosses the Savannah River.

(2) Eliminate arm of left wing toward Fort Mott.

(3) Extend right wing movement from Ft. Mott to Columbia.

(4) Show date of February 17 for Columbia.

(5) Label dotted red arrow leaving Charleston as Hardee, February 17.

(6) Show March 3 date for Cheraw.

(7) Show March 11 for Fayetteville.

(8) Show red bar for Johnston south of Bentonville; battle was March 19-21.

(9) Fort Fisher taken by Terry February 22; Wilmington taken by Terry February 22.

(10) Eliminate line Schofield to Fayetteville.

(11) Change line from Wilmington to Goldsboro from dotted red to dotted blue; label "Terry.'"

(12) Eliminate dotted red line from Fort Macon; create dotted blue line from New Bern to Goldsboro; label "Schofield."

(13) Goldsboro -- Sherman, Schofield, Terry rendezvous March 23.

(14) Union movement from Goldsboro to Raleigh should be three blue line; suggest middle one be dotted for Schofield.

(15) Sherman enters Raleigh April 13.

(16) Johnston retreated to Hillsboro (north of Durham Station).

(17) Surrender at Durham Station on April 26.

(18) Show only two Union columns moving into Virginia (Howard and Slocum); Schofield stayed behind.

Hope this is of some help to you. Those are my collected thoughts. Tried to research carefully but might have more or corrected thoughts over the course of time.

Here is a link to a map showing the gathering of the Confederate forces before Bentonville. http://www.nchistoricsites.org/Bentonvi/map.htm

Keep up the good work. Hartfelt (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Thanks for the heads up on your map improvements. Much improved, and I have incorporated the new version into the AOT article. When I have a chance to look at it more closely, I'll let you know if I have any specific suggestions. Thanks also for your note about the Carolinas Campaign article. I'm still bogged down with AOT and feel like I am never going to finsish with that, much less undertake something new. Hartfelt (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I removed the underscore. I was just trying to reset things so that your improved map showed in the AOT article. Somewhat to my surprise, the changes you made were not automatically reflected in the AOT article. Had to click thru and resave. Hartfelt (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

George Gordon

How did you calculate the age of Simms? I find him older than Gordon at the time of promotion. Maybe that's what they meant. Edison (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Battlefied results

Hi Hal:

Is there language rules on how the results of each battle is described? It seems there a several ACW articles on wiki that don't seem to follow any rules. If not, then I propose the following:

I. Simple Results

a. Union victory (e.g., Battle of Champions Hill, Malvern Hill)

b. Union decisive victory (e.g., Battle of Nashville)

c. Confederate victory (e.g., Battle of Chickamauga, Fredericksburg)

d. Confederate decisive victory (Battle of 2nd Bull Run)

II. Mixed Results

a. Tactical Union victory; Confederate strategic victory (e.g., ????)

b. Tactical Confederate victory; Union strategic victory (e.g., ????)

c. Tactically inconclusive; Union strategic victory (e.g, the Battle of Antietam)

d. Tactically inconclusive; Confederate strategic victory (e.g., the Battle of Chancellorsville)

Anyway, what do you think? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Atlanta Campaign map

Hal: I noticed last night that your Atlanta Campaign map has the wrong date for Kenmesaw Mountain. Should be June 27, not June 22. May eventually have some other comments. Hartfelt (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the info about the Atlanta map. Hartfelt (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Adjectives

Hello Hal:

I was reading the section on the use of adjectives in your article "Why". Although you make some good points, I think the rational conclusion would be to limit ALL battles of the ACW to either "Union Victory" or "Confederate Victory". After all, you said that...

It is best for all concerned that all of these adjectives be omitted and virtually none of the ACW articles use them. In almost all cases, historians do agree on which side achieved a victory of some sort, so limiting it to just "victory" meets everyone's basic requirements without injecting POV concerns.

But then you say:

There is one notable exception that I am aware of that I believe is justified. The Battle of Antietam was indecisive on a tactical level, but it is considered a strategic victory for the Union and the battle box indicates as such. (Bold added.)

Why is this justified??? Be specific, since I'm sure I can come up with at least one other battle that had the same level of significance (which would render the first quote meaningless, and thus open the door to using adjectives in other battle summaries).

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal. You said, "I doubt that you will find any other inconclusive battles with similar significance...." The Battle of Chancellorville comes to mind. The same tactical results existed at both Chancellorsville and Antietam. The only difference is who withdrew first, yet the strategic implications are undeniable in each case.

At any rate, you said, "The reason is that this [Antietam] is a tactically inconclusive battle and I don't want the casual reader to think it had no strategic significance based on that simple phrase. The key adjective here is "inconclusive". Was Antietam inconclusive?

Two points:

1) The Battle of Antietam was NOT tactically inconclusive. Even in the BOA article itself it says, "Lee withdrew from the battlefield first, the technical definition of the tactical loser in a Civil War battle." Therefore, to say it was inconclusive in the summary box is bizarre.

2) Continuing from point #1 above: If the results in the summary box are anything other than Union Victory or Confederate Victory, then I don't see why other battles, such as the Battle of Atlanta, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, etc., can't have the strategic implications included (and the strategic implications of these battles are clearly huge).

Regarding McPherson: I can't respond to why he said what he said about Antietam, since I have no idea how he defines a "turning point", or even if there was more than one such turning point. According to the article, "Turning Point of the ACW", it defines it as:

The idea of a turning point is an event after which most observers would agree that the eventual outcome was inevitable.

What evidence does he provide? In any event, such evidence should appear in the body of the article and NOT in the battle result summary box.

All I'm arguing for is consistency in how battle results in the summary box are handled. You have (rightly) said in the past that the strategic implications of a particular battle should be handled in the body of the article, yet I don't see that applied uniformly, which suggests a definite POV. If Strategic Victory is acceptable for Antietam, then surely other battles deserve such a label. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond directly on this page (without editing it), so please forgive me if this seems to be a conversation with myself, which may not be far from the truth.  :)

You said,

Bill, no serious historian calls Chancellorsville inconclusive. It was a stunning victory for Lee (albeit one at high cost).

I didn't mean to suggest that Chancellorsville was NOT a victory. Rather, if Antietam was tactically inconclusive, I was assumming that you were going merely on the number of casualties. And if that is the case, then Chancellorville would be Tactically inconclusive, Confederate Strategic Victory, which would be the same sort of summary result as Antietam. In other words, there are only two major military differences between Antietam and Chancellorsville:

1) Hooker retreated at Chancellorsville, while Lee retreated at Antietam

2) Lee lost his (arguably) his best general at Chancellorsville

And if we're going only on the number of men lost (as a % of army size), then Chancellorville's result summary should use the same language as the language used for Antietam.

Once again, I'm NOT arguing about the specific language used in general. I'm arguing for consistency. I think all battle summary results should be Union/Confederate Victory, or Inconclusive, period. But if we are to add strategic results in the summary box for one battle, then we must do so for other battles.

You said,

McPherson's thinking is actually summarized in the Wikipedia article.

And that's where it belongs, but if he is being used as a reason for adding "strategic victory" to the summary box, then, logically, other historians can be used for other battles.

You said,

If I had to clean them all up, I would remove all references to strategic victories (because that really is an undefined term) and leave simply victory or inconclusive.

I'm not so sure that a strategic victory is undefined, but the rest of the sentence is what I'm arguing for. Although we seem to agree on that, then why was the addition of strategic victory added to the Antietam article? Would you mind if I changed it to read merely "Union Victory"?

You said,

For those articles in which confusion might result, I would use a footnote to explain in detail.

I disagree. No footnote is required in the battle summary IF it is explained in detail in the body of the article. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say as much to me in the last 2-3 months?  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Adelbert Ames

There you go all done. Just for some background, many of the Medal of Honor citations have broken links due to the Marine Corps whos who site or the Medal of Honor site so I am cleaning them up. I have also been having a lot of issues with the Corenbot tagging the MOH articles with copyright vio tags due to the Home of Heroes website. So this will fix that issue as well. You will likely see many more rolling through as well as cleaning up some dates. In this case the source for the citation was the find a grave website and although that site is good for some info, the actual military site is a better ref for the citation itself. I hope you agree with that assessment. My intention is to add the AMOHW ref to all the recipients for the citation for the ones that are missing or broken. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. --Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, the reason I put those at the top is becuse there is a blurb somewhere (I cannot locate it at the moment though) thats states that citation templates such as this and the DANFS one should go at the to of the references section...plus its a lot more difficult to use AWB to add something to the end of a section that the beginning. Feel free to move it though if you like. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Don Carlos Buell

Here you moved "Notes" below "References"; in biographies, "Notes" should be above "References". You can also see featured articles such as John McCain and Barack Obama. I also inserted {{clear}} to keep "See also" separate from other section. AdjustShift (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Second Battle of Petersburg Correction

I just wanted to let you know that the account of Colonel Chamberlain being wounded (believed to be mortally wounded) is incorrect. While he was promoted to Brig. General, the man himself did not request it. It would have been impossible seeing as he was unconcious and nearly dead. Major General Warren was his Corps Commander and it was he who reccomended Chamberlain to Grant for promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillemNormniae (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker

Given the obvious quality of your contributions to Winfield Scott Hancock, I would like to solicit your feedback on how to go about improving and preparing Francis Amasa Walker (who served under Hancock in the II Corps) for FAC. I'll look for your feedback at Talk:Francis Amasa Walker. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous abuse of the colour "Furble"

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to your misuse of the colour Furble which as any fule kno is a light brown, with hints of green, unless used by the Royal Marines in which case the brown is a touch darker. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS seriously, it's a very good edit, and I do hope that a consensus can peacefully be reached. I'm very much in favour of not trying to summarize things too much in a couple of words when they've clearly taken a lot longer than that for historians to understand! Cheers.

Thanks for the lovely reply, which made my day. I've gone a bit quiet on the topic recently anyway, partly due to my having started to appreciate the huge complexity surrounding this! Thanks again, DBaK (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The Shiloh article

Hi, Hal. I saw the note you left about the Shiloh article and will try to provide secondary sources when I can. Probably won't be soon due to other commitments. Hope things are going well at your end. Hartfelt (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Hope all's well at your end. I have posted the Shiloh-related info you asked for, on the Shiloh discussion page. Separately, have you noticed the latest addition to the Sherman page ("The Devil's Incarnate")? Seems a blight on the article to me, but I don't feel I have enough objectivity to undo the edit. Hartfelt (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

fort sanders

[3] thought you might find this of interest for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sanders 8-31-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.103.11 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mississippi River campaigns in the American Civil War

The article Mississippi River campaigns in the American Civil War is one of the 100 oldest articles tagged as unreferenced. Do you have any references you can add to the article? In my research (very breif) I find only one campaign, http://books.google.com/books?id=2DETAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA280&dq=%22Mississippi+River+campaign%22+in+the+American+Civil+War&as_brr=1&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=%22Mississippi%20River%20campaign%22&f=false lead by General Fremont. If I Reference it I would strip it to a stub and move it back to Mississippi campaign, You have shown some interest in the article, so I wanted to offer you the chance to address it before I do. Jeepday (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

George Thomas

However, I would suggest that there are few historians who would rank him above either Sherman or Sheridan. Hal Jespersen 02:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Benson Bobrick's new bio (Master of War) does. The problem is I'm not deeply versed enough to know just how accurate it is. But he states (page 2) In recent years, a kind of consensus has emerged among many close students of the war that Thomas surpassed not only Grant and Sherman but even Lee. (p3) Thomas was the only Union general to destroy two Confederate armies, and the only one, besides, to save two Union armies from annihilation by his personal valor and skill. I'd love to see that second quote added to the lede. And based on this book, I'd like to add a paragraph about his ability to build and train an army. Or should this wait until there is more reaction to this new book? Nitpyck (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the super fast reply. So when he writes a kind of consensus he means a consensus of one. I still may do something about Thomas' training methods and theories- especially his criticism of McClellan's failure to "blood" the troops. Nitpyck (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

George Meade house

Can you verify or find a source for the story I added to the George Meade talk page about his house? --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

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

Philip Sheridan

Hi there, I added more material, a quote, and citations about Sheridan's role in saving Yellowstone National Park, and added other WP tags on the Talk page. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon B. Buckner

Thanks for all your helpful suggestions regarding Simon B. Buckner. I think I have addressed them all now. If you have further suggestions, please leave them at the FAC page. If not, I hope you will consider adding your support for its promotion to FA. I notice it's near the bottom of the list of FA noms with 3 supports (counting the nominator) and no opposes. I'd really hate to have to restart this process for want of one "support". (At least four supports is still the rule, isn't it?) Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I understand. Your contributions to the article have been quite helpful enough, as I doubt it would have passed FA without them. As it stands, a fourth support has been added, and I anticipate it will make FA any day now. Thanks again. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Wauhatchie -- and Brown's Ferry

Hi! Your edit that removed the Brown's Ferry name from the lead of Battle of Wauhatchie has created some confusion. (Isn't Brown's Ferry an alternate name for that battle, as the article had said since 2005?)

Another user had stumbled across the battle while trying to disambiguate places named "Brown's Ferry", and one thing has led to another. Please stop by at Talk:Battle of Brown's Ferry and help sort things out. --Orlady (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Little Round Top

http://www.maine.gov/sos/arc/archives/military/civilwar/morrill.htm

Walter G Morrill won a congressional medal of honor for this battle (at least I think it was this battle) Can this be added to the page? I am not confident enough with the history of the battle to edit the page myself.

My in-laws are decedents of Mr Morrill, and they donated his medal to the Maine Historical Society.

Thank you!

Cindyscrazy (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)(cindyscrazy@gmail.com)

Couch boxes

Howdy. I was looking at your recent Couch edits and noticed the boxes at the bottom of the article (which I recognize you did not add). The succession lists for corps level organizations are really pretty silly. The II Corps had about 30 commanders during the war, many of them for only a few days at a time, presumably when the regular commander went on leave or was filling in at the army level for another temporary absence. I am not going to mess around with the article while you are editing it, but if you would join me in quietly removing these boxes over time, I think that would be a reasonable course of action. By the way, although I do not care much about it, why did you decide to delete the list of battles in the information box? Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello there Hal it's been a while! First query: I too have no love for those boxes way at the end of pages, have often seen the "invisible" personal-data run right into them and show, and I agree it gives the readers little info for the very reasons you give. Don't be surprised if Couch's - and others - get lost along the way! We could very well have one showing the few days Longstreet presided over the AoNV from time to time! Second query: I have no problem with you or anyone editing responsibly anywhere, but appreciate the space! Third query: I was adding pics to Couch's article and intend to add one maybe two of your battle maps later on, and I thought that damn infobox we both love interfered with the look of the page and their placement. Hell, I think most of our boxes are too long anyways! Those battles are already in the lead and/or main body, and will be expanded on as I go, but feel free to put them back. Kinda doubt you will, though!

Looking good so far on Rosy's page by the way. Good day sir! Kresock (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You see this? Not even the right war or century - are our kids learning anything these days in school? Might have to cry a little now..... Kresock (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good luck containing those fellas. They're passionate, and as long as they believe they are right the fight goes on. Sounds like a war I seem to remember..... Kresock (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, sir! Some questions on Couch. One: got anything about his Mexican service, why/how he got his brevet? Not overly important as most ACW guys got them then, just wondering. Two: I began to expand on his Civil War stuff, but I'm not as good as others at the in-battle stuff; could you take a pass at Seven Pines for me? Three: Scott Mingus added the Gettysburg militia stuff to the lead back in '06 and it has been slightly expanded on since then. I feel it doesn't belong there as is, and should be summarized then added to the appropriate sub-section as I go, but unfortunately I cannot cite it. Can you? Hate to see is go if accurate, and I did ask him as well. By the way, did something happen to Couch's boxes? I'm stunned ;-) Good day! Kresock (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Email sent good sir! Kresock (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Got the email. I found the work on Google, even a 2009 print, so it probably is in the book stores around me. If it's cheap I'll pick it up. Mr. Mingus was able to put in some cites and changed the IPA as Couch's biographer relates it for his name pronunciation; again if that is cheap too... I'll let you know when I'm done with him and tag you in! Good day, sir. Kresock (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Petersburg

Hi, After reading the text about the First Battle of Petersburg - Butlers attack on June 9, 1864, I found one apparent error in the short paragraph on the Kautz' attack up Jerusalem Plank Road. When General Wise discovered Federals attacking the north of the city in the morning, he immediately telegraphed Beauregard and requested reinforcements. Beauregard released BGEN James Dearing's composite cavalry brigade and the Petersburg artillery battery for use by Gen Wise. According to W. Robertson, "The Battle of Old Men and Young Boys - June 9, 1864" HE Howard Publishing, Lynchburg, VA, 1989, pp.73-78.-- Dearing's brigade arrived in Petersburg around noon and was directed to Battery 27 and the Jerusalem Plank Road. Upon arrival, he dismounted his cavalry regiments along Reservoir Hill and positioned his guns around the Cameron House. After Kautz attack pierced the Dimmock Line, the milita fell back -- through Dearing's lines. The advancing Federal unit was struck by cannon fire and a charge by one of Dearing's regiments. This caused Kautz advance to halt,regroup, then withdraw. Dearing reoccupied Battery 27 and the Rive's Farm area. It was around 3 PM when Kautz heard nothing from Gilmore's attack and decided to return to Bermuda Hundred.

Is there a way to insert something about Dearing's effort into the existing text? Dearing was a member of the West Point class of 1862 until April 1861 when he resigned to return to Virginia -- he served first with the Washington Artillery at Bull Run, then took over the Lynchburg artillery and then Pickett's artillery battalion through Gettysburg. Subsequently, he was given a cavalry brigade in the Department of North Carolina and Southern Virginia under Beauregard and Pickett. He married a young lass from Petersburg in January 1864. His efforts on June 9 were kept alive in ceremonies honoring the Battle of Old mend and Young Boys in Petersburg for many years after the war. Later, His brigade maintained watch over the Weldon RR. It was transferred to Army of Northern Virginia when WHF Lee's cavalry division was transferred in late March 1865. Dearing was then commanded the Laurel Brigade in Rosser's division until he was mortally wounded at High Bridge on April 7, 1865.

Brian McEnany West Point Class of 1862 research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.31.149 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know whether you will see this response, but since you did not sign in so that I could find your talk page, I will have to simply respond here. There is no problem adding details from reliable secondary sources and I invite you to do so. As you can see, the references on this article are rather skimpy so far. Our style of writing battle articles is to not include very much biographical information about the participants, so merely a link to Dearing's bio article will provide the connection to his West Point history. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Maps

Hello. I've just seen your astonishing battle maps in several American Civil War articles, so I'd like to know if you could make one or two about the Battle of Kursk. Please let me know... --Sepp ^talk 10:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Do you have another user in mind who could do it? The battle is too complicated (at least the Greek edition I'm working on) and existing maps insufficient of clarifying the situation.

P.S. Carry on the good work! --Sepp ^talk 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Decisive" action

Thanks for the cleanup. I had considered quoting you directly from the talk page, but decided to rough the point in, and let you guys decide how best to phrase it. Thought it had nice symmetry/irony, the source being provided by Valkyrie Red. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:David B. Birney.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:David B. Birney.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 05:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Email

Please check your inbox. Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Franklin - no problem with the changes!

This is a repost from the Talk page of the article:

Hey Hal: I believe it's just me who's also been working at improving this article too; mainly through some copy-editing and explaining a few interesting points. I like all of the revisions you've made and I have faith in your plans, so don't worry about making the changes you've suggested. Also I think making this the main Battle of Franklin is a good idea. Only question I have is about why you removed the "decisive" in the "Union victory" - I would consider this a crippling defeat of the Confederates. But I assume you view "decisive" as "deciding the campaign" and would save that for the Battle of Nashville which ended it. I've got no problem with that interpretation, just curious what you define it as. Anyway, good luck and I probably won't be editing this further now that I see you're actively working on it, at least for a month or two. Wilytilt (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! Wilytilt (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)