I have removed the busy in real life template because I am a coordinator for the Wikiproject military history starting October 1, 2023. I think the template is currently improper because I will try to answer questions pertaining to the project and pay attention to needed work as quickly as possible. I expect to have more activity on Wikipedia in coming months, real life/health permitting, of course, than I had earlier in the year. I will have some days without any time online or only a brief time online. I will try to post a notice if I am going to be offline for any long period of time. I have added a prioritized to do list to my user page. That may move along more slowly because of coordinator tasks or unanticipated editing that need more immediate attention. Donner60 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please put comments or questions on new subjects at the very bottom of the page, use a new section heading, refer to the exact title of an article and sign your message with four tildes. If you send me an e-mail please leave a talk page notice. I am not always prompt at looking for new e-mails at the listed address. Donner60 (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please put new messages at the very bottom of the page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC) To clarify, the new item should not be below this message and not below the repeated message after my introductory paragraphs but at the very bottom of the page after every other item on the page. It will help me to understand what you are talking about to add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with (if your question or comment refers to a specific article), using a link, probably putting the article title in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here if the answer is simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. When I notice an out of order question or comment, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is none already. Donner60 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

If you have come here for information, or to complain about something, read the information at the pertinent links in the next two sections first. It may save both of us time as well as providing an immediate definitive answer. Current talk page items follow these sections.

Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakes

Simplified and good introductory references: • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. • Getting started. • Introduction to Wikipedia. • Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset and • Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style.

• Wikipedia:Civility • Wikipedia:No personal attacks. • Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

• Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style. • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Relative time references. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Editorializing. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. • Wikipedia:Handling trivia. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context.

• Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided.

• Wikipedia:Five Pillars. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Help:Footnotes. • Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. and • Help:Contents.

User Talk page policies and guidelines

• Help:Introduction to talk pages. • Help:Using talk pages. • Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages: While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.

There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.

User talk pages are subject to the general user page guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.

• Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.

From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

• Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
• Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
• Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g., :<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.</small>. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.

Note that it is proper to use <nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples. ...............................

Put messages at the bottom of this page, please. Please put messages, questions or comments at the very bottom of the page, i.e. after every other item on the page. If you put them here (immediately before or after this paragraph or section), I may either not see them or at least not see them very promptly. That will delay any reply from me to you. Please add a section heading, identify the article you are concerned with, and use a link, (if your question or comment refers to a specific article or edit), probably putting the article name in the heading, and sign your edit with four tildes (~~~~) so I know to whom to reply.

Where I may reply; and reasons why I might ignore or delete your message Often I will reply on your talk page and may note or summarize that reply on this page. If you do not get a reply on your talk page, check back here. I may put brief replies here, especially if they do not seem urgent. Keep an eye on this page because I may just reply here, especially if the answer seems simple and does not seem to be time sensitive. If you have a user name, I will try to remember to ping you if I just leave a return message here. As far as I know, IP addresses cannot be pinged. When I notice a question or comment that was not placed at the bottom of the page, I will move it to the bottom of the page and provide a heading if there is not already a heading.

If you put a question or comment on this page but not at the bottom of the page despite the above request, and you can not find it if you check back, I have moved it to the bottom of the page in a new section with an appropriate heading if there was none given to the message.

If your edit was disruptive, vandalism, uncivil, nonsensical or abusive, and you do not find the edit on this page, it is because I have deleted it. In most such cases, I will also put another warning on your talk page, but will not otherwise reply to it. (I will reply, however, if you then leave a civil and reasonable followup with a legitimate question or comment and some reference or reasonable explanation related to the question or comment. Note that I cannot reply to a message which is incomplete or otherwise cannot be understood or reviewed on another page.)

If I do not reply to your message, but do not delete it or have archived it, it is likely because I took it to be a statement rather than a question or message that called for a reply. If some time has passed since I have logged on, the message may have become stale, or appear to me to be stale or no longer in need of a reply for some reason. In those cases, I also may not reply and will likely simply archive the message at the next archiving on aging messages/replies.

I occasionally get one of these notices. I fix the link or bracket, then delete the message, as the messages state is permissible, instead of further cluttering up these pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
......................

		The American Civil War Barnstar
		For all your excellent help with Gettysburg, Hobart Ward, Stonewall's arm, and many other articles. Hog Farm Talk 17:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hog Farm on the Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

Donner, would you be able to check to see what information Eicher has for William Y. Slack sometime? I'm finishing up a rewrite of the article. Hog Farm _Talk 19:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hog Farm: Under Eicher's stated guidelines for who was a confirmed and commissioned general and who was a "might have been" as not having gone through the whole process, only a state militia general, or just a misidentified rank for an officer, Slack should not have been listed as a CSA general but both Eicher and Warner do list him as such. He had been a Missouri State Guard general and was confirmed and commissioned as a CSA brigadier general after his death. I followed the listing in Eicher and Warner rather than the guideline or commissioning procedure when finishing the List of American Civil War generals (Confederate) and splitting off the List of American Civil War generals (Acting Confederate). Anyway, here is the information from Eicher and from my comments about Slack on the Generals List, which were almost certainly taken entirely from Eicher and Warner.

From Eicher:

b. Mason County, Ky., 1 Aug. 1816. Moved to Mo. 1819. Lawyer. Capt. 2 Mo. Vols., 1846. MOV 1847.

Brig. Gen. C.S.A. (D5) Mo. State Guard, 4 July 1861-Aug. 1861; D4 Mo. State Guard, Aug. 1861-10 Aug. 1861; w. in the left hip, Wilson's Creek, Mo., 10 Aug. 1861, B2 - Mo. State Guard, 23 Jan. 1862-7 Mar. 1862; Brig. Gen. C.S.A. 12 Apr. 1862 (posthumous commission due to poor communications with Richmond); m.w., in the hip, Pea Ridge, Ark., 7 Mar. 1862, and d. Moore's Mill, Ark., 21 Mar. 1862; int Confederate Cemetery, Fayetteville, Ark.

From Wikipedia List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)

Slack, William Yarney

Colonel

Brigadier general

(posthumous)

rank, nom: April 12, 1862

conf: April 17, 1862

Mexican–American War.

Brigadier general of Missouri State Guard, July 4, 1861– March 21, 1862.

Severely wounded at Wilson's Creek.

Promoted to brigadier general, CSA, after his death on March 21, 1862, from wounds received at Pea Ridge, March 7, 1862, close to old wound.

Slack was taken to a house within a mile of the battlefield but after a few days was moved to Moore's Mill, seven miles away.

Condition rapidly deteriorated, leading to his death, March 21, 1862, aged 45.

Confederate Senate may not have known of Slack's death at time of confirmation.

Warner, Eicher list as a general. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial and the South China Sea raid, Hawkeye7 on the 1999 East Timor intervention

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For your help in saving Battle of Gettysburg at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I was glad to help. The Battle of Gettysburg is such an important milestone in U.S. history that it should be kept to a good standard. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will say that, having rewritten Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Old Appomattox Court House, and Sweeney Prizery to stave off deletion, there is a fair chunk of unsupported sourcing, copyvio, OR, and minor factual errors in some of his writing. As well as a lot of instances of repetitive prose to get the word county up for DYK purposes. Just as a heads-up, any of that content re-added will need to be source-checked (I can try to help track sources down - Wilson's Creek has a really good research library, and it's close enough for a Saturday trip for me). Having looked through several of his articles, the article quality tends to vary quite a bit. Hog Farm _Talk 13:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I certainly would not re-add anything that I cannot reference to a reliable source that I already have. I also will not presume that any reference that he cited even to an obviously reliable source is actually supported by that source without checking it. Coldwell may not have been careful, and many in some cases have even been deceptive, about referencing. And now that I look at it, the Conclusion of the American Civil War article, which I have already researched in depth, is the only one that seems to need some work to bring it back to a more complete state, if not GA. I will not look to re-add Coldwell material or sources directly but to improve the article through independently sourced and verified additions.

After posting an earlier version of this early this morning, I did some more examination of the Coldwell problem and found that you had corrected almost everything already. Also, unless I have missed something, the Coldwell effect on history articles overall does not seem to have been anywhere near as great as the comment that set me on my wayward course indicated. I should have done more preliminary work and not assume it was going to take too long to be thorough before setting off. I would have saved you and others at least a little time and aggravation. I revised an earlier note on BusterD's talk page before writing this one as well.

I suspect that I have enough sources that can be used to put worthwhile material into the Conclusion of the Civil War article and perhaps any others that might pop up with regard to Coldwell problems as well as working on many other ACW topics. I will certainly take you on on your to help on these or other articles if I come across something that needs more or better sourcing. Otherwise, I think you can look to me for references on some things while you continue on the many worthwhile articles and projects that you are working on. My library, especially considering downloads of old sources and some articles from online sources together constitutes a large collection, although the Gettysburg collection is by far the largest on any topic. You are much faster at getting things done so helping you with some sources is a good use of my time in getting info into the Wiki. Donner60 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Western Allied invasion of Germany Op-ed: Hawkeye7's tips for writing articles on military logistics

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

• New partner:
  • Perlego
• Library access tips and tricks
• Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donner, I had fixed the headings to the correct case, but you changed them back in this edit. Please fix. See MOS:HEADINGS. Respond here if you have questions. Dicklyon (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. You are correct, of course. I didn't notice the intervening edits and obviously have not been paying enough attention to that. I may have had in the back of my mind that this article would not get much attention and I could correct things as I went along. I have been around long enough to know the MOS on many topics, including headings. I have been preparing wholesale changes offline and putting them into the article in batches, some of which repeat what I had written earlier. That is the reason the change happened, not because I was specifically trying to keep the previous version of the headings.

I usually don't write articles or revisions this way but thought I could make some headway with an article I had promised to upgrade quite some time ago. I have been delayed mostly by real life and trying to save GA assessments on a few articles. No excuse, just the reasons I might have been going about this in a less attentive way. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'll pay more attention in doing the remaining revisions and additions.

Great pictures on your user page, by the way. Donner60 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D review three recent works

Hello Donner - I assume you have seen the comment on the Gettysburg talk page about cavalry in the InfoBox. I've found a count of ~13,000 cavalry for the Union (Coddington, p.249). Sears says Union cavalry was some 15,000 (June 27-28) after a reorg (p.130). Sears says Confederate cavalry was 12,400 (p.57) when they crossed the Potomac, although you and I know they lost at least 100 men at the Battle of Hanover before Stuart got to Gettysburg. A problem is that Sears also says Stuart's force was about 5,000 when it moved crossed the Potomac at Rowser's Ford on June 28 (p.106)—and I can't believe that Lee had over 7,000 cavalrymen with him at Gettysburg before Stuart arrived. Any thoughts? It probably would be good to address the odd cavalry comparison in the InfoBox. TwoScars (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) - Gonna be out of town a lot this week, but I can check my copy of Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg sometime soon if that would be helpful. Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TwoScars: @Hog Farm: I have started looking at this. Oddly enough, I have been looking at the cavalry at Gettysburg in connection with a summary of an offline presentation by another member at last month's meeting of a history/collectors organization which I need to finish this week.

So far, figures for the Union force have been between 11,000 and 13,900, the latter of which is about 1,500 higher than others so far. At least two other sources than Sears have around 12,400 men for the Union cavalry so that number may be about as accurate as it may get.

A couple of sources that I have seen put Stuart's force at Rowser's Ford at 6,000. In an agreement with Longstreet, he left Robertson's brigade and Jones's brigade with the main army. Longstreet later said or wrote that Stuart wanted to leave his least effective units and commanders behind. Apparently "Grumble" Jones did not get along with just about everybody, so there is that. Also, Jenkins brigade was off to Chambersburg well ahead of all the Confederate forces. Imboden's force of 2,000 joined up with the main army from West Virginia (didn't look up the state admission date) and was not part of Stuart's cavalry division. So, in fact, Lee may have had 5,000 to 7,000 cavalrymen but he may not have trusted them (or ignored them?) and had them do mostly work such as guarding wagon trains. Or part or all of those units also may not have been at hand either?

I'll try to firm everything up in the next day or two. If I don't, it could be several more days before I get all the numbers together. It sometimes takes skimming through quite a few pages to find any numbers at key dates. I'll leave a brief note on the article talk page. Donner60 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on alleged Australian war crimes and Hawkeye7 on the 1944–45 Philippines campaign and the Australian Signals Directorate

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

• Suggestion improvements
• Favorite collections tips
• Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm capable of chipping in a little bit, even though work is quite hectic so my overall time is limited. Just let me know if you'd like me to look into anything. Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the work you put in checking the military history writing contest entries. Hog Farm Talk 23:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. It's something I can do for the project which relieves the frequent contributors from the task and can be spread out over a month. Donner60 (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Adam Cuerden on finding and using images

Hi Donner60, I am looking to work with the Wikipedia community of editors to suggest objective edits to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) article to help address the style and tone issues highlighted for this article, as well as the issues noted around primary sources. I have a COI as AFSP is my client, so I will not be making edits directly. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look at my suggested edits for this article, and if you agree, help with implementing the edits?

I have drafted a rework of the first lead section of the page to address the tone issues and add additional 3rd party sources. We are looking to provide updates for the majority of the page to answer the issues in full, but are breaking them up by section to allow for easier reviewing by editors. This is a big ask so very much willing to work within your schedule in terms of working on the updates for the page.

I left a note with fuller details about this on Talk:American Foundation for Suicide Prevention if you would like to take a look. Thank you! JAustenFan (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thank you for the compliment of your invitation. However, this is well outside my area of concentration or expertise. This also would to need be added to other articles that I am working on - as well as to "real life" commitments. For example, I have promised to help improve articles including the Battle of Augusta, Kentucky, Battle of Atlanta (in jeopardy of losing GA status), Grierson's Raid and two biographies of Civil War generals, one of them new. I regret not being to help on this but I am sure there are experienced editors working on the project with the expertise to help - and most likely with better writing skills for improving an article on this type of subject. Best wishes and thanks for paying attention to a very important topic. Donner60 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your response and letting me know! JAustenFan (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Greenbrier River, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3rd Arkansas Infantry Regiment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Oppenheimer biopic

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

• New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
• Tech tip: Filters
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Lewinsville, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Battle of Lewinsville, the "Gray Ghost" wrote that he regretted "the glorious opportunity that I missed of winging their colonel"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lewinsville. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Lewinsville), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on an American general and the first female astronauts, Nick-D on Roman fortifications

Hey, among your work I see some names you removed in your first edit where I'm not sure if you've removed them accidentally. Since it is one edit there are no individual explanations and I see substantial promotions shown in the list. Could you please take a second look at (or clarify about) Lawrence P. Graham, Richard Henry Jackson, Thomas John Lucas, John J. Peck, James Hughes Stokes and Davis Tillson? Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it turns out, I was writing to you at the same time you wrote to me. I do need to be watched on this project. One mistake is embarrassing. More than one shows that I need to be more systematic and careful (and is even more embarrassing). After I did the mass deletion, I started to examine the two lists side by side and to have the sources, Eicher, Warner and the Official Memorandum from 1906 at hand. I realized more than one deletion at a time was a bad idea and that I should re-check the ones I had already done. I thought I could go back later. Bad assumption, it's taking much longer than I thought it would to go through these. I have done no more mass deletions and am being more systematic and organized with the later ones (except one, unfortunately).

I apparently took out John J. Peck along with the removal of Frank Henry Peck. There is an entry on the brevet list for Frank Henry Peck. A version of the wrong person mistake with Ramsey, which you caught earlier. So I need to restore John J. Peck.

James Hughes Stokes was nominated as a brig. gen. USV January 13, 1866, confirmed February 13, 1866, to rank from July 20, 1865 with an appointment date of July 22, 1865. He was mustered out August 24, 1865. Richard Henry Jackson was nominated as brig. gen. USV January 13, 1866, confirmed February 23, 1866, appointed and to rank from May 19, 1865. He was mustered out of the volunteers February 1, 1866. I thought they did not qualify as Civil War generals since all the dates were postwar. I now find that Warner and Eicher include them in their lists, even though their stated standards for inclusion are stricter. Warner even notes in both biographical sketches that they were postwar appointments. These are apparently among one of the types of odd cases you had run across earlier. I suppose the names could be restored to the list with appropriate footnotes. Since Eicher and Warner include them, I will add them back.

Lawrence P. Graham and Davis Tillson were additional mistakes. I thought that it was odd that Graham was listed as a colonel and later as brigadier general as of an earlier date. I did not recognize that it was USA for one and USV for the other. I started an article on Tillson a few years ago and never finished it. My incorrect recollection was that he was a brevet general. There are no articles about these generals and a few others. I had thought that another user had completed the substantive grade Union general articles but he did not do so before leaving Wikipedia in 2015, with one later edit in 2021.

I will restore the incorrectly deleted entries after saving this reply. I think the underlying reason for these errors is that I was trying to rush through what I thought would be a very easy and short task. A bucket of trout for me. I am very grateful to you for promptly letting me know about these entries so I can correct them quickly and be reminded to be careful with the others that need to done. Donner60 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, nobody is perfect and your work is appreciated. I permanently have an eye on those lists and the technicalities can make them tricky to work on. Thanks for the second look. ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. All restored with Stokes and Jackson noted as postwar appointments included by Eicher and Warner. Donner60 (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Donner - I used to use the FA Toolbox that has now been discontinued. The only tools I use for articles now are : "Find Duplicate Links" - installed over ten years ago, so I have no idea how to install it (but I use it); the Archive references tool; the copyvios tool; and the reFill tool to fix up citations. Do you know of any other useful tools for checking and fixing Wikipedia articles? TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Tools if you have not done so already. I have not read through it carefully but that is the only place I can think of to look for additional tools. I have only ever used or been aware of the tools that you mention, not including the find duplicate links. Good to hear from you. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tip. That page looks like it has a lot of things for me to explore. BTW, I have not abandoned Military History. I have been currently writing about glass factories. One museum mentioned me in their newsletter, so the pressure is on to get a few done (and I have). Also have a new addition to the family! TwoScars (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Congratulations. Donner60 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Donner, thanks for adding the contest results to the Bugle. Is there any reason simongraham wasn't awarded the Writer's Barnstar for second place? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. I did not have it in mind. I will correct that. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

For the identifying the 'not around' status of absent friends (sic) It is very useful, thank you for that. JarrahTree 08:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I hoped it would be somewhat useful. Unless I miscalculate, I am allowing at least a year in line with a guideline I read somewhere. Most of the absent users are found on one article in particular, and a few others in the same general topic area. Three users have responded that they were still here, for which I have thanked them. I intend to limit my time on this since I should give other editing and projects priority. I appreciate the positive feedback. Donner60 (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

• Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
• Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donner, I cannot find a high-quality source that provides Union strength at Big Black River Bridge - I've tried Miller's Vicksburg, Kiper's bio of McClernand, Smith's work on Champion Hill, Woodworth's Nothing but Victory, Ballard's Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign that Broke the Confederacy, the Internet Archive copy of Grabau's Ninety-Eight Days, vol. 2 of Bearss's big work, the wikipedia library copy of a 2013 work that is an anthology of chapters on the campaign by various authors (Smith wrote the Big Black River Bridge chapter), and Shea and Winschel's Vicksburg is the Key. I'm assuming that this must simply not be known, especially if I can't find it in Bearss, but I was wondering if you had a source handy that might shed some light on this; no worries if you don't. Hog Farm _Talk 05:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“The " Missouri division " (Bowen's), was renowned for hard fighting, both before and after this affair, but this was a case to try the nerves of the steadiest veterans, for every man felt instinctively that he was in a position where he ought never to have been placed. As they observed the movement toward the woods on their left flank, many of them slipped off one by one to the bridge in rear.”

“Meanwhile brisk firing was carried on opposite the centre for about half an hour, during which Carr's division was moving into the piece of woods on the right, and A. J. Smith's division was coming up and forming on Osterhaus' left. Just as Smith's division was coming into line Carr's men emerged from the woods with a loud cheer, and rushed forward upon the intrenchments. Vaughn's brigade in the centre saw that they were cut off from the bridge and immediately turned and ran at full speed. Bowen's division at first attempted to make a defence, but in a few minutes saw that it was hopeless, and it then joined in the attempt to reach the bridge. All the reports, Union and Confederate, speak of this as a precipitate flight, every man for himself. The 18 pieces of artillery were all abandoned, over 1,400 small arms were thrown away, and one-third of the command (1,751 men) were cut off and made prisoners. The rest reached the bridges in time, and immediately after crossing set fire to them. As they had been previously prepared for this purpose by scattering loose cotton and turpentine on them, they were quickly consumed. The losses on the Federal side in this engagement were 273 in killed and wounded, all but 30 of which were in Carr's division. The whole affair was over soon after 9 o'clock in the morning.”

Greene, Francis Vinton. ''The Mississippi.'' (Volume VIII of Campaigns of the Civil War). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1882. ((OCLC|1049663214)) page 164

Among other things, Greene is identified as Lieut. Of Engineers, U.S. Army.

Available at https://archive.org/details/mississippi00gree

The American Battlefield Trust web site, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/big-black-river-bridge, shows troops engaged Union: 2,500; Confederate: 2,000; Casualties: Union 273, Confederate 1,751 captured. One could surmise these casualty figures came from Greene because the Union casualties given by the National Park Service are 279. Ballard also uses the numbers of Union casualties as 39 killed, 237 wounded, 3 missing, totaling 279.

One would think that the Confederates had at least a few killed or wounded but evidently there is no report showing what the numbers were, as noted by the National Park Service.

I found no source for Union strength other than the number given by ABT. I can only surmise that this was the estimated strength of the units that were engaged.

The National Park Service web site shows “Confederate losses at the Big Black River Bridge were not accurately reported, but 1,751 men, 18 cannon, and 5 battleflags were captured by the Federals. Union casualties totaled only 279 men, of whom 39 were killed, 237 wounded, and 3 missing. Grant's forces bridged the river at three locations and, flushed with victory, pushed hard toward Vicksburg on May 18.” (Note: 279 rather than 273 as shown by Greene and ABT.) https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/bigblack.htm Donner60 (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also http://battleofchampionhill.org/history/big-black.htm which includes a quote from a Union colonel's diary. Note that some Confederate soldiers also drowned trying to escape by swimming across the river according to several reports. These also would not have been included in the 1,751 captured. The Confederates were routed so quickly that perhaps the killed and wounded number was small, but it is difficult to conclude that it must have been zero. Donner60 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for looking! Bearss has about 20 Confederates killed or wounded between Green's brigade, a Mississippi artillery unit, and a few casualties known from stray documentation from one of Vaughn's regiments and Cockrell's brigade. No casualty reports exist for Cockrell and most of one of Vaughn's regiments and the Mississippi infantry unit, and killed-wounded-captured breakdown is not known for the rest of Vaughn. The strengths on the ABT website can't be right or are maybe only Vaughn against Lawler + 2 Indiana regiments that charged with him; the Confederates didn't suffer over 80% casualties and the consensus of the print sources I looked at has CSA strength around 5,000 with the Union apparently greater. Hog Farm _Talk 01:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are correct about the Union strength on the ABT web site being limited to the units that made the charge. The number of men that McClernand had on hand or close by would have well exceeded that number. I think the CSA strength of about 5,000 includes units on both sides of the river whereas the lower number may seems to include units only on the near side of the river. Even Greene states that "one-third of the command (1,751 men) were cut off and made prisoners." That's math even I can do that results in the Confederates having about 5,000 men in round numbers. Too bad that in this case sources are not more explicit about the units they are including in their counts of strength. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have marked him as missing from Wikipedia for more than a year, but just two days ago he thanked me for some messages I left on his talk page. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I will remove the template if it is still on the page. A thanks is not recorded in the user's editing history. So if that is the only action a user has taken recently (within the last year or more on a template that I have placed - the date on the template will be at least a year earlier), it won't show up when the history is viewed. Someone who views that history will not know about the other activity of the user in sending a thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

Lady macbeth did not leave wikipedia.. I donate monthly to it and check in regularly though time has been limited. if you have specific things you would like done i'll be happy to do them, otherwise, just message Ladymacbeth9 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. These templates can be placed when someone does not have an edit in their editing history for a long period of time. Other involvement, including donations and send a "thanks" (but not posting it as an edit) will not be picked up in the editing history. A few instances of this anomaly unfortunately occur. Oddly enough, removing the template, as well as your post here, adds current edits to your editing history. No template should be placed on any user's talk page with an edit within the past 12 months. The guideline is a bit flexible, however. Again thank you for your generous offer. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Donner60, we need experienced volunteers.

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, it basically boils down to checking CSD, notability, and title). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions. You can apply for the user-right HERE.
• If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
• Cheers, and hope to see you around — ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 18:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Donner60. I recently discovered your American Civil War library (and three related Civil War libraries, and seven unrelated ones; did I miss any?) and I was impressed. I'm working on a project to extend the concept of shared references in a given article, to sharing references across multiple articles; see ((Reflib)) for an explanation. Your library could help in the effort to make citations more widely shareable. I'd like to discuss further with you, if you're willing. I envision a new article domain at Reflib, or more likely several of them, about subtopics of the American Civil War, that might be based on your list of works. If you're amenable, I'd have follow up questions for you on how to move forward with this. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a complete list of American Civil War books and the other lists, including the one you looked at which has a general title That is not a complete list. It started as such but got rather long. It and the separate lists divide the books into categories for easier research. There is some repetition; I have put at least a few citations in more than one list. The further unrelated lists are not American Civil War books. One of them is still quite incomplete as is stated at the outset.

Except for a few example citations that I have in the topical lists, my lists are not in the format of CS1 or CS2. They are straight Chicago Manual of Style. That is permissible but is not among the recommended "Wikipedia" styles CS1 and CS2. Nonetheless, several contributors to American Civil War articles have used that Chicago Manual of Style citation form. One longtime major contributor to American Civil War articles who was already prolific when I joined Wikipedia (and is now almost completely inactive) used it and recommended it. That only means that the recommended Wikipedia styles may not be used in existing American Civil War articles quite as frequently as they are used in articles on other topics.

If an article that I am editing uses a different style, when I cite a new reference, I try to conform to the existing style. I assume that the reflib would need to conform to one of the CS citation styles from the outset to satisfy most users who would want to use those styles. I do recognize some advantages in that, including for repetitive citations in the same article. Conforming my list to those styles would mean a substantial amount of conversion work and a commitment of a significant amount of time.

I have no problem with anyone copying the references in my lists for a new reflib. I assume this will not require a constant stream of visitors to my own pages in order to use the references. They are certainly open to anyone who wants to use them as references. But I have dealt with enough vandalism in different contexts over the years to know that is a possibility, even if rather unlikely. So I would not want my pages to be an open Wikipedia library. I don't keep them a secret; I have told others who work in the area to use them if they find them helpful. These are users who I am confident won't mess with them, of course.

While I otherwise don't mind use of the material, I will not be able to spend the time doing the many conversions to the preferred styles or for any other work requiring much time in the foreseeable future. You may know that I have been a coordinator for the Wikiproject Military History since October. This requires time and attention to various tasks for the project, almost daily if one is to do it right. In addition, I have a lengthy to do list which hasn't budged since I became a coordinator. I also have some projects in real life, including a presentation on a military history subject next month, with at least a few others possible during the year. So much as I see the merit in your proposal, I can commit the resource to be copied, but not much in the way of time. Best of luck with it, it sounds like it could be valuable to good faith users who become aware of it. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sure you will see the later message from me about this on your talk page if you have not already. It adds more information and perhaps puts a different perspective on the proposed project. It refers to existing Wikipedia page bibliographies on the American Civil War that are longer and all seem to be in straight Chicago Manual of Style format. It does not repeat much from the above message but does refer back to it a few times. Donner60 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Donner60, thanks for the detailed reply; I'm still digesting it. As far as conversion, I wouldn't expect you to change anything on your page; it's more a question of asking permission to import your list (or some subset of it) into a list at reflib. Normally, I would credit the list owner in the edit summary of the initial import, but if you are concerned about additional visitors to your library as a result (which seems unlikely) I could avoid any link or mention of your page, if you prefer, although I like to give credit where it is due if there's no objection. There would be nothing you would have to do, and nothing to convert. There are a couple of relatively small things that would be helpful if you have time, is whether you could advise me of any sources in the list that you believe are not reliable or otherwise unsuitable for being cited in articles for one reason or another.

About citation 'style' as we use that term at Wikipedia: when we talk about matching the citation style of a given article, we generally do *not* mean MLA vs. Chicago, APA, and so on; we mean whether we use one of the three Wikipedia citation styles:

• inline harv citations (Johnson (2005) p. 23)
• inline full citations (<ref> tags with full citation in-line between the ref tags, or
• short citations inline((sfn|Johnson|2005|p=23)) which links to the full citations using CS1 templates listed all together in the "Works cited" or "Bibliography" section at the bottom of the article.

Reflib is primarily concerned with the last of these, and once the full citation is in a CS1 template, there is no MLA or Chicago or APA anymore; the 'style' choice is one of the Wikipedia big three.

One other thing about conversion: a separate project on my docket is to see about the possibility of parsing plain-text templates (MLA, Chicago, etc.) as used in journals and converting them to standard Wikipedia CS1 templates. That project is on hold, but I made a lot of progress quickly starting with MLA before pausing it; it's useful to know that yours are in Chicago style; that was #2 on my list after parsing the MLA style, and Chicago shouldn't be any more difficult. But like I say, that's a different project.

As far as Reflib, importing your citations (less any you advise as unsuitable) would be a good start. Since the list is long, I may wait to import it until I have a reasonable Chicago parser, rather than do it by hand. Also, the 'American Civil War' is a big topic; too big for one Refib, perhaps? I'm not worried about length, here; that is not the issue. The issue is, that an article domain is defined by a set of articles on a topic that are likely to *share* citations amongst themselves. That would be another useful thing you might help with that is, to let me know which sources you think are likely to be cited across different articles; a source like the 'Roster for the 3rd Kentucky Rifles of winter 1863' (I made that up; sorry if it's nonsensical) is likely to be useful to only one article, and therefore not a good candidate for inclusion in Reflib, which is all about *sharing* citations. Knowing which ones are 'shareable' in that sense, would be a big help.

I'll have a look tomorrow at the messages on my Talk page and respond to those as well. And thanks again for this! Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would prefer any use of my list to be anonymous. While I agree that it is unlikely that anyone would mess with my list, it apparently happened at least once to Hlj and my experience with having my pages vandalized 894 times over the years when I patrolled recent changes and reverted vandalism give me pause. My American Civil War Library page starts with frequently used references, continues with mostly battles and campaigns separated by the States or areas where they occurred and ends with books on guerrilla warfare. The latter are not separated by States or regions although most of the guerrillas operated in one or two States. A few of the subsections in my other lists are likely of some general use, even if the topic name seems specific. The Wikipedia articles that I mentioned on your talk page have many categories that may be useful. I will try to compare them and form some opinion about them, probably later in the week. I assume you are likely to evaluate the Wikipedia bibliographies and also form your own conclusion about whether they are suitable for the project. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Donner60. Understood; I will keep your name and links to your library out of it. Tbh, I'm not knowledgeable about the topic itself, so I don't trust my own judgement too much for source evaluation (other than general principles for any topic I'm unfamiliar with; no SPS, reputable publisher, etc.). I could try to check incoming citations or impact, but that could get time-consuming, especially as this is but one of many topics I hope to add to reflib. However, lucky for me, I've long been an occasional wiki-correspondent of user:rjensen at Wikipedia, who is Richard J. Jensen, American historian and creator of H-Net, and has been helpful to me on various Wikmipedia articles, and I believe he can help with evaluation far better than I could. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sure Professor Jensen can be of great help. I did assume you had some familiarity with the topic. I will give some consideration to the topics and the evaluation. It may take a little time. I am confident that my books are good ones, with perhaps an exception here and there. I went to some trouble to evaluate them before I bought them. There is also a reference book on about 1,000 of the most valuable publications written by historian David J. Eicher in 1997. It is divided into topics and has short reviews. I will copy the section headings for you. That may end up being a better contribution than I could make with my own judgment - along with the Wikipedia bibliography topics. Of course, the books in those bibliographies were added by many users and one cannot be sure how they were evaluated. Another such book of evaluations and short reviews by another author is due to be published early next year. I usually wait until books start showing up as used but I might well buy that one soon after it appears. Donner60 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I guess there's one general question I could ask you now, which is what your feeling is about histories that are not very recent; do we have to knock off some 'value' because later historians would have the benefit of additional insight, additional professionalism, perhaps additional discovered primary sources, and post-1995, the internet?

I'm aware of historiographical trends in other areas—for example, anything written about Vichy France pre-1975 or so predates the Paxtonian revolution, and except for perhaps niche items of fact, earlier works are almost useless in a general sense. Otoh, in looking at Ancient seafaring citations, I've learned that there are some outstanding works going back a century or more that are still referred to, even if specific portions may be outmoded in parts by more recent research, or just general opinion of historians given the broader scope they have since then. (Right now I'm looking at a copy of A History of Roman Sea-power Before the Second Punic War, J. H. Thiel (1954) out of the library, but it's hard for me to know if this is still considered a valuable resource without outside advice.)

I noticed other libraries of yours including your ancient/medieval library, so maybe you'd be a good person to ask, only without the book I imagine it'd be tough, as Google offers no preview of this one. But in the general case, is there any advice that could be given about books about the Civil War, say, written in the middle of the 20th century? Have they lost any luster in the light of later scholarship in favor of newer histories, or are they still worth including as valuable resources? I'm guessing that in the end it's a case-by-case sort of thing, but I was wondering if there were any rules of thumb that might shortcut the evaluation. Mathglot (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no books on Roman sea power. I have not thought about acquiring any to add to the general histories that I have. I did not think I would edit in that area and, as I suppose is obvious, I have more books than I can possibly read. I bought many of them to be used for research and perhaps quickly skimmed. I would guess that there are few books on Roman sea power before the Second Punic War. If I recall correctly, the First Punic War was the event that showed the Romans that they would need to add a powerful navy to their land armies. That makes me wonder how much could be written about Roman sea power in the earlier period and whether there would be many books that could add much history or archaeology later.

The short answer on the value of earlier Civil War books is that it is case by case. There are some excellent books, still often cited, by soldiers and historians from the Civil War period itself. The two books by Union general Humphreys about Virginia campaigns are outstanding examples. These are often cited, and as I see it, often copied sometimes without complete attribution. Of course, they are out of copyright.

I think that the World Wars greatly slowed down the writing of books on the Civil War and Civil War biographies, with some notable exceptions. That is a guess based on the number of books that I have or have seen quoted from that time period. Some outstanding books were written in connection with the Civil War Centennial in the early 1960s. This trend accelerated and continued up to relatively recent times. It seems to me that the number of such useful books is tailing off in favor of books on narrow topics. If I have some further or more specific thoughts later, I will mention them.

Despite the many excellent modern books on the Civil War, there are recent books that are not very good or do not add anything of significance or are niche books that deal with narrow topics. Biographies can be useful beyond an article about a person because they may describe the person's actions in detail in various battles or situations.

I looked at the Eicher book, which is a reference in the Bibliography of the American Civil War and other main Civil War bibliography articles. The number of topics is large both in the book and in the bibliographies. It looks like all of the Eicher topics are covered, and more, in the Wikipedia bibliographies. So I would not accomplish anything useful by typing out Eicher's extensive table of contents.

The Wikipedia bibliographies need some recent books to be added. They are quite lacking in ISBNs, which I can add as I have time.

If I have further thoughts later in the week, or later on, I will add them. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have page patrol issues I can help. I build and edit wikis of my own using this software. let me know what you need and I'll work on it. Quite frankly, i've been a professional editor and writer for 20 years. each time I made an edit that corrected grammar or spelling, or said that a page wasn't really relevant or they were not celebrities etc. someone whined about it. It just seemed like a waste of time. Ladymacbeth9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your offer. I see you have noted the number of times my pages, mostly my user page, have been vandalized. It does get aggravating at times. I became accustomed to it. Dealing with it can be a waste of time, however. That persistent vandalism was why my user page was semi-protected by a sympathetic administrator, without me even asking her. My other pages are not protected. I doubt that they need to be right now. Post-covid, I only revert vandalism or nonconstructive edits if I come across them. I have not been doing patrolling, only doing a little gnome-like work that I should probably defer. I have been a coordinator for the military history wikiproject since October and I also have a long to-do list of substantive editing and writing.

I have dealt with users who may be in good faith, but insist on the correctness of incorrect edits and push POVs and original research. That can be harder and take longer to deal with than the vandalism. It is easy to get fed up with that.

Have you considered whether you can help Mathglot with the reflib work? It looks like it would be quite a project. I am not sure whether this type of page has been easily established so for or whether Mathglot might need some help. I am of no help at all on software programming. I will take you up on your offer if I run into something that I need help on. And if you notice anything else that I work on where help or correction is needed, please let me know. I may not even realize that help is needed or can be had. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Donner60, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 22:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help. I added a few more articles to the Assessment requests page and also a list of articles, that are listed as B-class, but on their talk page listed as Start-class. As I wrote between 95% to 100% of the text of these articles, I would like other editors to have a look at this discrepancy. Thank you, best regards, noclador (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas, Donner60! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 15:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 12 Days of Wikipedia On the 12th day of Christmas Jimbo sent to me 12 BLPs 11 RFAs 10 New Users 9 Barnstars 8 Admins Blocking 7 Socks Socking 6 Clerks Clerking 5 Check Users Checking 4 Oversighters Hiding 3 GAs 2 Did You Knows and an ARB in a pear tree. -May your holiday season be filled with joy, laughter and good health.--Chris Troutman (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] This message was generated using ((subst: The 12 Days of Wikipedia))

Hello

Thank you for continuing to assess the articles; and I have a question on the Assessment page you wrote in regards to Talk:2nd Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna" "B class criteria met; assessment changed on talk page"; yet on the talk page of that article there are no changes. I don't feel like changing anything there, as I wrote the article, so could you please update it? Thank you, noclador (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Thanks for catching the mistake. I changed the assessment to B, or saw it was already B, but forgot to change all the criteria to yes. I am sure you know that if all the criteria aren't checked yes, assessing or changing the class to B is not enough to make it show as such. I must have read it or published a change without checking the criteria or without proofreading the full assessment or the final result. I'll be watching out for a similar error on the later ones. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are so close to 232k edits! You have 2 more edits, and then you will have 232k!! Btw merry late Christmas and happy new year!!! --MDK-Fan 00:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! And happy holidays and happy new year to you! Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		2023 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar for being nominated for the 2023 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts throughout the year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Congratulations on passing 232k edits on Wikipedia!! Also happy New Year's Eve before 2024! --MDK-Fan 20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

Donner60,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and happy new year to you! Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your work reviewing the backlog of Italian Army articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Thank you! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! At least 40 more to come soon. The editor has done a good job of bringing these up to B class. He will be posting the remainder in the near future. Donner60 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your constructive comments. I found a statement in the book by Edward H. Sims which I reworded and added to the lead. Let me know if this resolves your concern. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. That works. I have just assessed the article as BL for military history, B for aviation, list for lists. That appears to be correct for the other projects. I will strike through the listing now. Donner60 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]