![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that the work you're doing to the article has improved it immensely and dovetails with my plans for the article; however, I have one rather major disagreement, mostly because it's very heavily stepped on my toes in my own ongoing edits (which are only on hold due to involuntary downtime for my own computer). Deletion of Brevet personnel without pictures makes no sense. I have been linking to brevet personnel with preexisting articles, and deletion of any who didn't have them would be logical. However, as there are plenty of full grade generals without pictures in the article, this action seems a bit arbitrary, particularly in light of the fact that picture do exist for these personnel (brevet and non), and it's only a matter of time before someone (myself likely) manages to get those photos and just has to go right back into this article and add the entire entry, rather than just the article. The standard for inclusion, in my opinion, should be existing information, not existing photography. Plus, that was a lot of very hard work you just wiped away without discussion, so you can see why I feel a little cornered here, and I'm sure you would sympathize if you were to imagine someone else coming along tomorrow and randomly eliminating your edits.
--IcarusPhoenix (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
First I wanna say good work. Cleaning up this list has been on my radar for a while now but I haev been invlolved with other things, primarily Medal of Honor recipients so I havent been able to get around to it. I left a comment on the articles talk page about splitting it as well (it wasn't me who left the page limit message BTW but I agree with it). Also, Just FYI too I was the one who originally added the branch with Union and Confederate because I was going to merge it into one big list rather than separate it but a certain editor left me some comments about my "activities" dealing with the page so I left it alone. It seems there are some editors who are particularly protective over certain topics. Just thought I would let you know since one stop by. The ACW topics seem to draw some, at times, heated debate. Good luck and please let me know if there is anything I can do to help in your efforts. --Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Right, so I've got my list of extra generals all written up; in the end, I found thirty-seven (of 137) other Confederate generals that I feel we should consider adding, and 250 Union (which, when you consider the 1,400 listed by Hunt and Brown, is surprisingly low... I was pretty brutal with my selections). Honestly, I think if we split the article, it shouldn't get too long (250 is fewer that the Confederates we'd be moving, anyway), and if we wish, we can have a multi-columned list (with no notes) of the remainder, either on that page or on a different one. In addition, this gives us more room to explain the nature of promotions and regulations, and write up completely separate information for both the Union and Confederacy, since most of their procedures were different. I also am still of the opinion that we should consider making two rank columns for the Union page, Substantive and Brevet; I think putting the brevet ranks in the notes section is too unwieldy. In the case of people with other notes (particularly those who held multiple elected offices, earned the medal of honor, had interesting family connections, etc.) it's hard to see the brevet rank immediately. For example, the entry for General Chamberlain would read thus:
Image | Name | Substantive Rank |
Brevet Rank |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Chamberlain, Joshua Lawrence | Brigadier General, USV | Brevet Major General, USV | Medal of Honor (Gettysburg, July 2, 1863) Governor of Maine, 1867-1871 |
Opinions? In theory, we could even put the link to Brevet in the column header, and leave it out of the individual entries, thus saving space. I wouldn't necessarily do this part immediately (I'd want to split the article first, after all), but if you approve of the inclusion of the extra names, I can get started on them this evening.
--IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I figured that I would leave the introduction to you to figure out, since you've put more work into it than anyone else of late.
As for a brevet list, I would think that we should have a single list (on its own page) of nothing more than names (like the appendix in Warner) and double up the notable ones - one brevetted before the end of the war, those brevetted who dies in action, those of notable name, major elected officials, etc. - inside the list as we've been doing. That seems to be working so far. I'm of the opinion that the overall brevet list hardly needs details, since of those 1,600 personnel, I'd guess that articles exist for fewer than 200 of them, if that, and most of the others probably aren't notable enough to merit articles.
IcarusPhoenix (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed you don't have any images of the Camp in the Article so i thought i might as well send you a link to the Library of Congress where they have pictures of guards, prisoners and sketches of the camp: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3a17854/?co=pga Hope it helps--87.70.124.157 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Glad i could help, even if only slightly:)--87.70.124.157 (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Great job on the Alfred Gibbs article. One reviewer commented about the intro being short. While it's true that intros can be up to 3 or 4 paragraphs, in my opinion a short one should not disqualify it from B-class. I'll review it as soon as I can. Djmaschek (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you have been doing some excellent updates of Appomattox Campaign articles. If you intend to do more of these, perhaps you should put the campaign article itself on your to-do list. I wrote it originally, but it consists almost entirely of stubs and NPS text at the moment. In my more recent campaign articles, I typically expand each of the battle articles themselves and then extract relevant sentences, paragraphs, and footnotes from those articles into the campaign article. A reasonable example is Franklin-Nashville Campaign.
I wonder if you would be interested in some suggestions on formatting. I have written a style guide for ACW articles and I'd say that 500+ of the significant Wikipedia ACW article use it: User:Hlj/CWediting. These are guidelines, not mandatory, but I see some value in having stylistic consistency across related articles. Here are a few general suggestions:
Best regards, Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I am happy to discuss any administrative, formatting issues, as well as substantive Civil War issues. You can either use this talk page interface or send me an e-mail; there is a link at the top of my user page. (I actually find e-mail more conducive to discussions.) I can also help with map issues, because I drew most of them.
My Bible for creating references (for books I do not actually have in my library, of course) is http://www.worldcat.org/. It provides ISBN numbers for all of the different versions of a book, and if it is an older book without an ISBN, it gives the OCLC. Try clicking this: OCLC 2153322 and see how useful the information is to the reader. Another useful link is http://www.isbn.org/converterpub.asp, which is a tool that allows you to format the ISBN numbers with hyphens in the correct places.
You are correct that the Wikipedia template version is not required for citations and when I maintain an article, I push back on attempts to convert them, relying on the Wikipedia manual of style policy that you do not make arbitrary changes to an allowable style that is already used consistently within an article. However, one of the reasons that I can sit above the fray in this way is that I long ago decided I did not care about achieving graded status on any of my articles. Well in the past, a few misguided souls attempted to get some of my articles upgraded to featured status without my active cooperation, and it was quite painful to have to argue with an army of anonymous reviewers. They demand somewhat arbitrary changes, different sometimes from reviewer to reviewer, and attempt to hold you hostage until you agree. So I take satisfaction of having my own set of standards and I spend my time improving articles with substantive content, not worrying about the Wikipedia bureaucracy. (Perhaps if these articles had my name on them, I might think differently about the number of little gold stars that I have accumulated.)
The NPS summaries are not there because they are fabulous sources of information, but because in the early days (before I started editing in January 2004), the military history guys found that they were in the public domain and could be copied over wholesale to form the entire framework of American Civil War battle articles. There are still a nontrivial number of battle and campaign articles that use text directly copied from the NPS site. This is legally acceptable, but is considered plagiarism and therefore undesirable in Wikipedia. Eventually they will all be rewritten, I hope. You are right in your observation that there is a very, very small community of active editors in this space, so things move slowly. You can see my personal to-do list here: User:Hlj#todobattles. But it is nowhere near being a complete list. However, the NPS summaries are reliable secondary sources, so if you find errors, they need to be treated as errors in other secondary sources. (My style guide has a discussion of how to deal with conflicting footnotes here: User:Hlj/CWediting#EFP. You might be surprised how many people do not understand the multiple point of view concepts described there.)
I confess that the NPS summaries have one additional positive factor. I have spent literally hundreds of hours arguing with people about changing the text in the information boxes of articles about the nature of the victory (Union victory, Union decisive victory, strategic victory, inconclusive, etc.) and I am usually able to convince people that since the CWSAC historians compiled information like this about almost 400 battles in one place, it makes sense to defer to them for a sense of consistency across all of our articles. So 90% of the time, I am able to assert "we use the NPS battle result" without receiving much more of an argument. And with a small number of notable exceptions, I am able to make comparable assertions about which name to choose for a battle. (By the way, in one of your articles you equated the term "Richmond-Petersburg campaign" with the "Overland Campaign." It is not. Richmond-Petersburg is the campaign we know on Wikipedia as Siege of Petersburg; the former is actually more accurate than the more popular latter. Since you are referring to this campaign only in passing, I would recommend omitting the alternative names anyway, because those are visible when the user clicks the link.)
Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
One further thought about classifying articles. My philosophy is that I do the best job I can and follow as many of the guidelines as I deem reasonable. If someone else thinks improvements can be made, the Wikipedia ethic is that they can do it themselves, rather than put themselves into an exalted position in which they demand arbitrary changes that I have to make. Although I have not done an inventory, I suspect that about one third of the 300+ articles I have written would be classifiable as B or A without any further modifications. And, as you have seen, I have a large to-do list to improve the rest.
One further thought about the NPS: I assume you are aware that the Frances Kennedy book you are citing is a product of that same set of historians, amplifying the abbreviated material from the website into book length. I can't say that I have found very many errors in it, other than errors of omission because of its brevity.
On the issue of removing something from an article versus simply adding to it: I rarely get involved in well-developed articles written by someone else, so this is not an issue. When I approach an existing article to modify it, it is usually one of the shorter ones (often something I wrote myself five or six years ago), and then I go through a wholesale sweep of rewriting it almost from scratch, ensuring that everything is well cited. During that process, if some of the existing uncited material is thrown away, I don't worry about it. I figure that if someone really cares about a particular sentence, they can reinsert it, although now they will have to have a proper citation for it. In practice, this almost never happens.
On using a variety of sources: I assume you are aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on using secondary sources instead of primary sources, right? We generally do not have to worry about differing views of the participants because we rely on the professional historians in their secondary sources to weigh the reliability of each story. What is interesting to me, or frustrating, is to see how the basic facts of history (number of casualties, sequence of events, etc.) are expressed differently by different professional historians. Those are the cases in which we have to use footnote or text explanations to sort out those differences. Virtually every one of my large battle articles has disagreements of this type.
Finally, on Sayler's Creek: I am the one responsible for the short explanation in the existing article of why it is spelled that way instead of Sailor's (which is the way NPS spells it). Based on the campaign book by Chris Calkins, however, I think it should be changed. If you don't have the book, let me know by e-mail and I will send you the page that describes the issue.
Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to bother you with too many comments, but since you seem amenable to it…
I have been on a low grade campaign to remove the references to "honorary" brevet ranks. The status of a brevet rank is actually quite complicated and sometimes they are admittedly used entirely for honorary purposes – in lieu of medals – but in other cases they are issued for arcane administrative reasons. So I always say something like "he was appointed a brevet major," leaving the characteristics of that appointment unstated. (It is also less than optimal to use brevet as a verb.)
The terminology US Volunteers or USV was not used in the Civil War. Although the concept is recognizable, I do not believe the term came into widespread use until the Spanish-American War – I have scanned through the Official Records and not found an instance of it. Therefore, in the ACW articles we say <rank> "of volunteers", although we usually do not even mention it unless we are trying to differentiate it from a regular army rank. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
First, I wanted to verify that you received my e-mail. (The address that you gave with embedded underscores seems a little odd.) I would be perfectly happy with a sentence that said "he was rewarded (or his gallantry was recognized, etc.) with an appointment to brevet colonel." Finally, about the dates associated with the promotion. These appear very infrequently in Wikipedia because it is a little more difficult to unearth the information. I use the Eichers' Civil War High Commands and you have to go fishing around through appendices to find dates other than the date of rank: nomination, appointment, and confirmation. It is actually sometimes useful information in cases of substantive rank. If you look at the date of rank and just report that as the promotion date, it makes it appear as if officers were promoted right on the battlefield, having dates such as September 17, 1862, or July 4, 1863. By looking further, you find that they were nominated or appointed a few months later. I have made an attempt to indicate this for some of the more important biographies, but it is nowhere near consistent. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edits to Namozine Church and I can still offer some assistance with the reference formatting. Just an example:
should be:
(I do not bother to put the retrieval date on books of this type, but that is the verb used by Wikipedia rather than downloaded.)
Also, in the short form citation/footnote you and I use, I would never include the name of the editor of a book. Simply the last name of the author of the article. The editor's name goes in the Reference citation. (I also do not bother to put the year of publication in the short form citation. In this case, yours is more correct than mine, but we all have our quirks. I use only the author's name and if there are multiple works by the same author, I disambiguate them by putting a portion of the title, which seems a little more user-friendly. For example:
Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I would still like to know whether you received my e-mail or not.
The reason that I "published" my reference list is for others to take advantage of it. I keep it in a .TXT file on my desktop and just copy entries whenever I need them, so you and others are invited to do the same.
The difference between ISBN and OCLC entries is that the former is widely used and is automatically converted, whereas the latter requires the use of an explicit template.
It is certainly possible for you to point readers explicitly to a specific page in an online book inside each footnote and some editors do that. For instance:
I do not because I think it is a big hassle and just overly complicates the "source code" of the article, making it more difficult for me to edit. My thought process on these articles is to make them as close as possible to articles in history books; historians never include copies of the pages they are referencing in footnotes. (That is also my justification for using compound footnotes, separating multiple citations with semicolons in a single footnote, rather than putting a whole string of smaller footnotes in the main text of the article. You would never see that in a book. But a lot of Wikipedia editors do that.) I tell readers where to find the information, but do not feel compelled to link them directly to it. If they are really interested, or question my sincerity or accuracy, they have ways to find the information, but the casual reader does not need to worry about that or get distracted by it.
My point about the retrieval date is that this convention was created for citing websites, which can change day by day, so you need to reveal which "version" of information you are citing. However, in the case of a Google book, the information is frozen in time because it is a static representation of a published work. It should be no more necessary to include a retrieval date for a Google book than to tell the reader what day you went to the library to look at a printed book. But whatever keeps those reviewers happy ... Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from from Wagner, Margaret E., Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference. (2009) ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6, page 59-63, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Kirk (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you may be over-doing the notes section; entirely aside from the fact that adding so much information sort of defeats the purpose of splitting the list in the first place, all of that information is (or should be) in their primary articles; since this is just a listing, we don't need Eicher refs for every single one, we don't need what regiments they were in, and we don't need nomination/confirmations dates for their brevets (as the "to rank from" dates are in the rank columns). Personally, I've just been doing West Point classes, CMOH and Thanks of Congress citations, combat deaths, resignations, major political offices, important relations, and commission rejections and expirations and the like while I'm doing my formatting (A and H are now done, and I'm about to do any letter with only a few names in it - I, Q, U, and Z). Just updating the format of the "H" section added nearly 5,800 characters, so I'm wondering if we're not going to have to worry about another size warning soon...
IcarusPhoenix (talk) 03:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
What a great article! Good job buddy. Please consider nominating it for WP:DYK. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to nominate the article you recently created Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1861) for did you know but cannot seem to find a good hook. All the ones I come up with suck. I would like to ask you if you could find a fact that is supported by a reference so that you could have some formal activity in the process. Regards. mauchoeagle (c) 22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
You are quite efficient in managing and archiving your pages so I may be a little outside your procedure with my slow reply. If so, I apologize. I will leave this message here and on my talk page, for what it may be worth. I would have thought it easy to pick out a nice fact or two from this article but some relate more to the personalities and others are a little hard to put in capsule form. Here are a few thoughts.
How about something to the effect that 64-year old civilian and former and subsequent Virginia governor William "Extra Billy" Smith took command of a Confederate infantry company which was resisting a Union Army cavalry raid in the first land battle of the American Civil War, the Battle of Fairfax Court House (June 1861) after their captain, John Quincy Marr, had become the first Confederate officer killed in the war? Poland, Jr., Charles P. The Glories Of War: Small Battle And Early Heroes Of 1861. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2006. ISBN 1-4184-5973-9. Retrieved May 10, 2011. p. 240. (I cite the internet site for a preview of the book, but since I own the book, that really was unnecessary.) Poland's book has the most thorough and detailed modern account of this battle.
You might have to tighten up the language a little. To be precise, I suppose it would be necessary to add after the Battle of Fort Sumter but maybe that could be implied in a DYK?
A curious fact is that more horses were killed in the battle (9) - also 4 wounded horses - than the total number of killed and wounded soldiers on both sides combined (8). The sources are in the notes for the paragraph just before the aftermath section. On the other hand, I just added a footnote stating that Tompkins (in his report a day later, same source: Moore) said he "lost" 12 horses - perhaps three wounded horses died in the interim. Picking up on that, less specifically, there were more horse "casualties" than human "casualties" in the battle.
There are several other interesting facts about this battle but some of them may be more appropriately taken from articles about the key individuals rather than the article about the battle.
Note that I have made a few additions and clarifications in the article. One is a footnote which lists many, if not all, of the additional skirmishes and small battles that occurred at Fairfax Court House during the war.
I am afraid that although I think this battle is an interesting and little known incident at the outset of the American Civil War, and has some interesting facts connected with it, I am not sure I have come up with a snappy fact or two for a DYK but perhaps this will give you a lead on putting one together. Donner60 (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That is what you are for that one... Since I had only made it through "A". If yours isn't ready to "go live" yet (as it were), you perfectly welcome to just paste the whole lot into my WIP page, and I can combine the two from there. If it is ready, how does List of American Civil War brevet Generals (Union) sound for the title? Either way, that's my next major thing to tackle, so I'll work on whichever you put up.
Also, last night I finally finished the reformat of List of American Civil War Generals (Union); I feel remarkably accomplished now! I'm going to go through today and tomorrow and do bits of proofreading and adding missing commission dates. Also, I may go through and remove extraneous links (New York is listed at least a dozen times for example, to say nothing of other states and offices). Whether I make each link occur only once per section, or only once period like the ranks are, I don't yet know. But for the most part, that sucker is done.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The lead section is meant to be a brief summary of the article, from one to four paragraphs long, varying based on the length of the article. The section you have just added is about 3x longer than appropriate and may be longer than the article it is supposed to summarize. :-) Even if you intend to expand the article later, consider trimming the lead way down. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Long time no speak. I wanted to take exception with the change you made to the James Barnes article. A brevet appointment should not be listed as an award--it should be listed as a person's highest rank, such as Brevet Major General. Our standard reference by the Eichers, http://books.google.com/books?id=Fs0Ajlnjl6AC&lpg=PA34&vq=brevet%20commissions&dq=eicher%20Civil%20War%20high%20commands&pg=PA34#v=snippet&q=brevet%20commissions&f=false, sums it up:
I hope that you will reverse this change for Barnes and other articles you might have touched. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I certainly understand that some of the Civil War generals were appointed to brevet ranks as a reward for service or gallantry, but it is not fair to say that all of them were. Is a judgment call whether to describe an appointment as an award and I think that using the information box in the article is a poor choice of a place to do that analysis. (This is a related issue to my campaign against using the term "decisive victory" in information boxes because there is insufficient space to discuss the pros and cons of the arguments.) I think you can make a case that an appointment made by Andrew Johnson had little military relevance, but information box is not the place to make it. So I think a rational choice would be to either list the highest appointment, brevet or not, in the rank section for all officers or to list no brevets. And since some of the brevet appointments were legitimate increases in rank, I think the former choice is the better one. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand your decision for removing the citation on the Point Lookout article, and I appreciate the thorough reasoning which you provided. I have no problem with the revision. All the best. Chandlery (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 5 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred E. Jackson, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Confederate brigadier general Alfred E. Jackson was pardoned by President Andrew Johnson because of his kindness toward Johnson's family during the Civil War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alfred E. Jackson.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
So far, I've not noticed any vandalism on the Confederate General's page, and only two incidents on the Union one; mind you, I'm of the opinion that far too much information is being added to the CSA page (birth/death/entire service records, and other things that basically are making even having bio pages almost unnecessary in some cases), but since the Confederate list has pretty much been your baby, I've left that to your judgment. As for Harris, I don't personally believe he meets the standards we have thus far used; when I initially went through Allardice for the "others" section, he was one of the ones I had disqualified. Everyone else on the "others" list either led troops in combat at their general's grade, was a Kirby-Smith appointment, or was notable for some other reason in their lives. In my opinion, Harris doesn't meet those standards, and to add him would lead us to add nearly one-hundred other names, most of whom aren't even notable enough to merit articles. What initially caused my notice, however, was the sheer number of edits the IP user had made - obviously, I suspected vandalism at first, but instead was pleasantly surprised to see that most of the edits were photo additions. However, the random off-site linking (making "Colonel" link to Find-A-Grave and linking almost their entire note off-site) is, if you look at the IP talk page, something the user in question has been warned about repeatedly, so it's just something we'll have to keep an eye out for, I suppose, now that they seem to have picked up an interest in the Civil War but have yet to learn how to use Wikipedia.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice adds to the article on the general from Bath. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
→εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 14:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It's nothing personal, we're on the same page (trying to make Wikipedia a greater reference). I support your good faith edits. Congrats on the extensive editing. Your résumé aside, in the instance of Ellen Spencer Mussey, you read that her husband was not actually a General (Civil War High Commands). I read different (American University College of Law). We both have credible sources, thus it's being discussed. In the instance of Sylvester G. Hill, you simply stated your reference to be a list of generals. There are dozens of lists of generals, so which list is your edit coming from? Can you see the confusion? Any editor could search each of your edits and nit-pick (some editors rely on their personal history of good edits to weigh on their edits rather than true references or citations), but it's more professional to seek a higher authority. Again, thanks for working hard to make Wikipedia better. When I edit, I think about if someone (such as you with good edit history) would have a problem with my edit/s. So, when I check edits, I expect them that have a substantial foundation. Keep up the great work, Donner60. You're doing great things here! Bullmoosebell (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
You edit with passion & adequate references, and your extensive service to Wikipedia speaks volumes of your tenacity to keep Wikipedia credible & fortuitous as a reference source. Your edits are in keeping with the proper Manual of Style of Wikipedia, the Policy on Good Faith Edits, and the heritage of the United States Military. Keep up the great work! Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
You've gone through much toil and hard work to keep the integrity of Wikipedia, while associating the proper channels and adherence to good faith edits. Seemingly overdue, you've earned the Barnstar of Defense. Bullmoosebell (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC) |
![]() | On 28 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William F. Perry, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Alabama's first superintendent of public education, Confederate brigadier general and college professor William F. Perry, had little or no formal education? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William F. Perry.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
You and I seem pretty simpatico, and I'm glad to cooperate with you. If it may appease you, I started the article about William J. Carson (Medal of Honor) because he was in the unit I was in (15th Infantry Regiment). Your extensive research ability could contribute to his article. I wrote the article briefly shortly after returning from a deployment, where I took a class on our unit history (specifically recipients of the MoH, when which I noticed William Carson didn't have a WP page). My next big project is to create an article about every MoH recipient (so they have a Wikipedia article). I'll eventually start it through my Sandbox3. Also, feel free to check my Sandbox1 (article about my great-uncle) and Sandbox2 (article about Ralph Puckett) for your desired critique. Thanks, in advance, Bullmoosebell (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my talk page, and I'm sorry that my edit summary was not clear. I was working on the assumption that it was MadMax's intention to remove blue links, based on another similar page, and as he appears to have been inactive for a long time, I did not think it would be a problem. Lists of just red links, rather than red and blue, make it easier to keep track of progress re the addition of missing articles. I suppose I could leave the pages as they are, and create new 'missing articles' pages by copying the red links, with a credit to MadMax. Either way, thanks again for your message, and no worries about marking it as vandalism. Moswento (talk | contribs) 09:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
So User:Brightgalrs, without once discussing it with anyone else, looking at the article histories, or bothering to read the talk pages (not to mention Wikipedia:Consensus) has suddenly shown up and made a massive 22,000 character addition to List of American Civil War Generals (Union) and a 307,000 character deletion from List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate), both of which (particularly the latter) drastically change the very nature of both articles. When asked why, the user insisted that her (?) way was "superior" and that she would allow for no discussion on this point from anyone. As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism. While some of her changes are more than welcome (additions of photos of Union officers, for example), the wholesale elimination of notations that were being worked on and the changes is format, to say nothing of refusing to discuss it with anyone else - either before or after - are, in my opinion, invasive. May I ask for you to take a look and give your opinion on the matter? IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Response on your talk page, long comment on Confederate generals list talk page. Just able to respond now - though at length. Not much time to do more over the next two weeks. Donner60 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |