User talk:Hlj/archive01

William Mahone: middle name

My curiosity is now up about the missing T word. I will do some digging. Vaoverland 02:14, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have lots of email replies from the railroading forums to which I belong, where William Mahone is well-regarded for the quality of his work. He apparently did not care for the T if he ever had it, as none of the bonds and etc. extant seem to have it in his signature of these rare documents (read:collectibles). I got one opinion that it may have stood for "Thomas" although none of the Mahone or Drew (his mother's side) family tree stuff seems to have a T word.

In the interim, I see you got one fire put out on old Jubal Early just in time for another one. Firefox, indeed. The name is unusual enough that anyone wanting to research him will find him, but there are all those links to fix! Drat. I did some repair work on the Jeb Stuart and Walter H. Taylor articles. Vaoverland 20:41, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Anything to improve Jeb Stuart or the other articles is OK with me. I went a little wide on the prose. He is a bit of an icon here in Richmond, as one might expect. The photo clip for Walter H. Taylor was an improvement over the one that was there. Sometimes on images I get my very close friend User:PearlWashington to find and upload them. You may want to check out her photo and her "hometown" location of Chestnut Grove in Lynchburg, Virginia if you are up for a few giggles. The external link is on her User page. That (parody) site is not mine, but is one of my favorites. BTW, after all that fuss, the Jubal Early character etc. isn't even mentioned in the Firefly show article. Vaoverland 21:33, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Isaac R. Trimble

I am just getting around to working on railroad background for Isaac R. Trimble. Sorry about the delay. I had gone to Library of Virginia, examined some rare docs, and checked out some books about William Mahone. What a character he was! Vaoverland 19:42, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have added what I could find. Here is a link to a National Park Service image of Trimble, not the best, but probably usable if nothing else can be found. [1]. I will be watching for more on him. Feel free to change what I added to your article. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:29, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that he was captured in summer, 1863, exchanged in February 1865, got back too late to join Lee and was parolled with other confederates in Lynchburg at the time of the surrender. (As opposed to Early, who fled). Did I get that right from your sources? If not, or if that is so technical as to be confusing, how do we fix it? Vaoverland 22:03, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Here is where I got it. I willingly defer to your credibility on sourcing. I just picked it up on a websearch. [2]. Vaoverland 01:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I like your solution. As we work through the many older railroads, those red links should eventually turn blue. Vaoverland 19:00, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Rodes

Re: message left on your User page vs User Talk page, SBTC. (sorry 'bout that, chief!). Still researching the Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad, source of the Chattanooga Choo Choo and later part of the Richmond and Danville Railroad, Southern Railway system, and now Norfolk Southern. Vaoverland 02:00, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

If you feel I am deserving, I'd like to ask you to support my adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brian0918. Thanks. --brian0918™ 18:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --brian0918™ 19:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shiloh

Great job on the Battle of Shiloh article. That was somewhere way back on my to-do list, and I'm glad you beat me to it. Good battle diagrams, too! -- Kbh3rd 15:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Union Army corps

I'm working my way through the [[U.S. NN Corps]], changing links, but yeah, having stubs in place would probably be an earlier step. I've created Category:Union Army corps, if you get to some before I do. —wwoods 22:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There. —wwoods 23:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Little Round Top

Well, the current campaignbox doesn't include the battle, nor does the NPS website from which I got all of the campaign names and theater names, so I'm not sure that this battle is officially considered separate from Gettysburg (there are a few other examples like this), so right now it's just sort off hanging on to Gettysburg. I decided to at least put it in the same category as Gettysburg, although I'm not sure it should be included in the Campaignbox. -- BRIAN0918  20:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I'm an admin now. Thanks for your support. -- BRIAN0918  20:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe these sub-battles should be given their own subcategories and those subcategories should be included in the specific campaign category. I don't think they should be included in the Campaignbox if they were only sub-battles, but they should be recognized somehow. So maybe Battle of Little Round Top should be in the category Category:Sub-battles of the Battle of Gettysburg of the American Civil War, or Category:Skirmishes during the Battle of Gettysburg of the American Civil War, and then that category would be put in Category:Battles of the Gettysburg Campaign of the American Civil War. Not sure. -- BRIAN0918  21:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stuart & Chancellorsville

Heya. I wanted to take a minute to discuss things ongoing in the Chancellorsville topic. I am missing one of my major reference books (Shelby Foote's "Narrative"), but I found a second one and looked into the matter of Stuart's ascention to infantry command. According to the "Rebels Resurgent" volume of "The Civil War", part of the Time-Life series, "A rapid succession of events had thrust Jeb Stuart into command of Stonewall Jackson's corps. When Jackson was wounded, leadership had passed to General A.P. Hill. But within minutes of taking over, Hill himself had been knocked down and so badly bruised by a spent shell fragment... he handed over command to the next-senior division officer, General Rodes. But Hill then had second thoughts and, possibly on Jackson's advice, send for Jeb Stuart to replace Rodes." (p. 141) The paragraph goes on to explain Hill's reasons for doing it. Lee was, at that time, with the other half of the army and communications were being run through a long and winding route, so I do not believe that Lee would have known about the change until it was made. I know that, in comparison to the overall topic, this is a minor issue and I'm probably nitpicking. If I am, I humbly apologize. I can provide a full bibliographic entry for the source cited, if you wish, as well. Thanks and good luck! --Martin Osterman 00:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem! I am quite impressed and in awe of the work you have done so far here on Wikipedia! Please, keep up the good work! I look forward to reading more of your knowledge being used here! --Martin Osterman 01:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kilpatrick

• I'd prefer it back at Hugh Judson Kilpatrick. I had an over-arching design I intended for the article, something more thorough and comprehensive than currently at Judson Kilpatrick. The "Hugh" wasn't unused, it actually is more prevalent in the source material...of note, I am his great-great-great grandson. —BlackBaron 00:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't mind if you do it, as long as you don't mind me improving upon it eventually. —BlackBaron 05:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I incorporated the items from the Judson Kilpatrick article, and will work on complementing them with more information in the coming days. Sorry for the mishap. —BlackBaron 05:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chaffin's Farm

I've moved it to Battle of Chaffin's Farm and fixed all the links (it still lists some articles under What Links Here, but I think those articles just need to be purged, or edited before it'll stop showing up). What other battles need this? If you send a list my way, I'll take care of it. -- BRIAN0918  01:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allatoona etc

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. If you check out Template:Campaignbox Atlanta Campaign, those two battles were added by User:Radiojon. I've removed Allatoona, and moved Pace's Ferry to the correct chrono. position. If it turns out just to be a sub-battle, then it should be deleted. I could only find info on it at [3] so I'm not sure it should be included. It's alright with me if you decide to delete it. According to [4], Pace's Ferry was "just" the scene of some skirmishes. It might be better for someone to create a separate article on Pace's Ferry and include info on those skirmishes; then that article could be added to the Atlanta Campaign category (but not to the campaignbox). -- BRIAN0918  18:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that first link says 300 union were killed, and 67 confed at Pace's Ferry, so maybe it should be included; those numbers are significant enough I guess. -- BRIAN0918  18:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fox's Regimental Losses

Am I correct in thinking that the text of Fox's Regimental Losses, on http://www.civilwararchive.com and/or http://www.civilwarhome.com , is in the public domain? If so, that'd make it easy to flesh out those ACW Corps stubs. —wwoods 01:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utoy

I was just looking for a PD pic to put on the page but couldn't find any, but found that site in the process. --brian0918™ 00:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fort Slocum

Thanks for the corrections to Fort Slocum (New York) --RoySmith 17:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stonewall Brigade

That looks like sloppy work on my part. I think it was done when I was working on another article, perhaps about Barnard Bee. In any event, the first 3 paragraphs were definitely not acceptable. I have watered it down and added teh sources for the rest of the information, also sloppy work not having already included them. Thanks for catching this, as I believe you and I both want good stuff only in these WP articles. Could you review and see what else could/should be done? I will also do a little more work on it. Thanks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 23:37, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please take the ball and run with it on Stonewall Brigade. I enjoy writing about people and places, but battles and military units are prett much outside my strengths and interests. Thanks! Mark Vaoverland 23:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

Thanks for cleaning up this page and replacing my HTML with Wiki. It looks and reads much better with fewer line spaces. Bart 00:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Vicksburg

I would just redirect those 7 articles. Let me know if you need anything deleted. --brian0918™ 00:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

W.H.L. Wallace

Thanks for the help with article. I have had the same problem with his name. I listed the versions I've seen under the talk page. Falphin 00:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Traveller

Well, your intent may have been a joke, but to many, Traveller is almost as much a legend as Lee, and far less controversial. Isn't an injured horse being shot a form of euthanizing? If not, we should change it back. I (for one) did enjoy your article. I am surprised that our racially sensitive city hasn't renamed the Robert E. Lee monument on Monument Avenue here "Traveller and a unamed rider" (or worse) Mark in Richmond Vaoverland 23:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I passed along your comments to the sculptor expert:

Thanks for passing that message on to me. it is [POV] the thing to do. I will get something happening on those sculptors. Carptrash 01:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC).

Vaoverland 02:00, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Spam

I removed the links because they came from a guy who has been spamming WP for a while with them. Other editors have removed them here and there, but I took care of them all. If you think they add value to the article, it's fine to put them back in. Cheers. CryptoDerk 16:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

&dash, etc.

I corrected the Richmond-Petersburg Campaign page and the only link showing, which was Edward Ord. I am not sure where this &dash comes from, probably copied text. User:Carptrash is sculptor-wise, and likes new challenges. I encourage your to access him for appropriate articles. Off the take Mom (87) for a Mother's Day ride. Yours in Richmond, Mark. Vaoverland 17:51, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Battles of Franklin

There is some kind of unsual technical problem blocking the action you requested. ??? Mark In Richmond. Vaoverland 03:41, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

ACW Victory categories

A while back I passed the idea past brian0918 and we both seemed to think that it would be a good idea. There is no real case study; I just thought that it would be interesting to look at the victories in chronological order (which I plan to do after I have all of the battles tagged). The real motivation was that, as you mentioned, I haven’t seen a list like that in any book I have come across and I just thought it would be an interesting to look at. Another reason was that it gave me something to do last night. On another note, I noticed that the format of each article varied greatly (some were divided up into different sections, others were just one paragraph ect.) I was wondering if there is any standard "look" that a ACW battle article should have. One thing that I did notice was that there is still a ton of work that needs to be done to the articles. I think a first goal should be to have some sort of text on each battle listed. (I finally have time to edit wikipeida now that all my exams are over). 578 (Yes?) 18:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you that some of the categories are a bit long and somewhat confusing. And about the Battle Boxes, i am going to try and make some sort of bot that will be able to dump the information from the NPS website right into the battle box templet, becuase creating them is rather tedious and time consuming. 578 (Yes?) 22:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Franklin 2005

I think I finally got it the way you wanted it. Whew. It took an unconventional route to get there, so I hope its wrote. Please check it. Any links may need correction. P.S. Let us hope there are no more battles, especially at Franklin. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 19:49, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Montgomery C. Meigs

Nice job of cleanup on this article; thanks! I was hoping to do it myself, but hadn't yet found the time. RussBlau 18:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Scott

Sorry, my recent edit to the Battle of Chapultepec article should make it clearer. It was during the battle. In fact, this image Image:Sanpatricioshang.jpg is a fairly accurate depiction. "hanged en masse in full view" was the way they phrased it in the Saint Patrick's Battalion's article. func(talk) 19:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er...during may not be an accurate description, actually. They were placed upon the gallows and made to watch much of the battle, but the actual hanging occured when the U.S. flag was raised at the Mexican compound, so technically, I guess the battle was "over" at that point. func(talk) 19:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of people

I'm not sure if there are any criteria. I think as long as there is a slight chance that the person could be mentioned in an article, or have their own article, they probably should be in the list. As for categories, they'll only list articles that have already been created, whereas this list will list everyone, and expose any gaps in Wikipedia's content, encouraging people to write more articles, which is never bad. I was looking through a bookstore in an airport last week and found Dee Brown's Civil War Anthology, which has a huge index of all people associated with the war who have been mentioned in the book somewhere. I've just been adding any generals not already in the list, but eventually I'll probably move to the lower ranks. --brian0918™ 00:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W.H.L. Wallace Image

My browser doesn't let me download images. The one on the left is public domain according to the ownder of the site. I was wondering when you get time if you could download the image to wikipedia. Thanks. http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/ngw/wallacewhl.htm Falphin 17:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Herman Haupt

Thanks for the excellent article on Herman Haupt. My initial interest came via his engineering work on the Hoosac Tunnel, and found your contributions on Haupt very informative. Econrad 01:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool article! Do you have any idea if Herman Haupt had a relationship with J. Edgar Thomson or Richard Peters? They were all from Philadelphia and involved with the Pennsylvania Railroad (Thomson was its president after the War). I couldn't find anything. Thanks Jolomo 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mc" names

"Mc" names are supposed to be alphabetized as though they are spelled "Mac". Similarly, "St." names are to be alphabetized as though they are spelled "Saint." The correct spelling still shows up on the category page, so that's not a problem. john k 18:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are all kinds of things people might think are typos and mistakenly correct. An html note would be useful, but I'm not going to go back through and add them in now. At any rate, when somebody is specifically going in to change the spelling for categories, but not the spelling of the name itself, doesn't that imply that, well, it has something to do with alphabetization, and not with being a bad speller? john k 19:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and in the future, if I do this, I'll try to at least put up edit summaries, if not in text notes. john k 20:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg National Cemetery

Since a) I took both pictures and I'm biased and b) you are obviously more experienced in both the Civil War and Wikipedia than I, I'll let you and others decide if the second picture should remain commented out on the Gettysburg National Cemetery page. I did want to point out that though the pictures are similar, they actually show different monuments in the cemetery, not different views of the same monument. Henryhartley 18:49, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reply. I've switched the places of the two photos since the one in the horizontal image is more central to the cemetery than the other. I also added the names of the monuments to the images. Henryhartley 20:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Custer?

• Hello, I made the Custer Category because you cannot find all of the information on his page that pertains to him and I thought a category would be easier. Also, I made the category because he is an American icon of sorts (there are hundreds of books about him) and I have noticed that other American icons have their own categories.

As for George McClellan, he is the one that really gave Custer his chance to advance by making him his aide-de-camp.

Hope that helps you to understand what I am doing! Phatcat68 11:13, Jul 18, 2005 (US ET)

Thanks! Sorry if making that category is a bad example...I do not plan to make any other categories like that one.

Phatcat68 16:14, Jul 18, 2005 (US ET)

Name of the Civil War

Don't you think that the name "Civil War" for the American Civil War is a misnomer? According to all definitions I've seen of a civil war, the "American Civil War" doesn't fit. "in which the competing parties are segments of the same country". The war was between two seperate countries. Bubba73 20:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

On a similar topic, I've never heard anyone call it "The War of Northern Agression" except jocularly. Bubba73 20:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of victims of the American Civil War

I've started this list of notable victims of the war, which should prove useful to readers. Feel free to add to it if you want.  BRIAN0918  20:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I look at categories as being used by editors, whereas lists are used by readers. While I'm sure there are plenty of readers who look through categories, the items should be shown to them in a more presentable way, namely in a list. I'd probably opt for making a list over making a category, but sometimes both are useful. -- BRIAN0918  21:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: HT alt histories

I think the key alternate histories of the Civil War ought to be included into the list of related novels. In The Guns of the South (while probably not the best of the alt-hists, a good one), Turtledove looks at the many different issues about the cause of the war and does so quite well. Simply because he changes the outcome of the war and includes timetraveling south african nazis doesn't mean it is of any less value when reading other fictional stories about the war. Some of the well-known stories don't even deal with the war except as a background for story lines that don't deal with the issues of the war at all. The Red Badge of Courage is a story that could be told in any war, not just the American Civil War. But the topics that HT covers in Guns could only all be covered in a story about the Civil War. What makes Red Badge fit there better than Guns when the latter is much more relevant to THE war itself as opposed to war in general? -- Bornyesterday 21:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gettysburg College

Thanks for the scrubbing and addition of CW Activities additions to the Gettysburg College article. I think I'll take care of the school-year stuff next, adding to the extra-curriculars. CWI was a really great addition. I wish I'd gotten to speak to you there (I worked on staff). If you want to contact me, my e-mail is rudyjo01 .at. gettysburg .dot. edu.

writing history on Wikipedia

Hello,

I’m an historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University (http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital, peer-produced works of history, including history articles in Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joan

jfragasz at gmu dot edu

[edit]

Benjamin Grierson

Noticed your revision of the Grierson article just after I dropped in a few details and added the Civil War category. Although I don't often work on military topics, I'll try and keep your format suggestions in mind. I have been working on a number of abolitionist biographies. Some of these men also served in the war, and I may do a little more revising. Thanks for your efforts. WBardwin 19:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

William Ludlow

FYI, started a stub on another military man/Civil War officer. A really comprehensive web site is referenced. I won't get back to it for several days at least. So, if you would like to add it to your todo list or format it to suit your style, I'll fill in some blanks on conservation and the Yellowstone expedition. Thanks. WBardwin 00:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Nonfederal" or "private"?

FYI: I notice you changed "nonfederal" to "private" in Fredericksburg and Antietam. My info only states "nonfederal," but does not go into detail as to what that means. This land within the authorized boundaries of the parks may be privately owned, but it also may be owned by state, county, or city governments. — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:15, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

I also saw that you added Category:American Civil War to the page. I wonder if this is too general. What do you think of a set of subcategories as follows?

Category:War → Category:Battlefields → Category:Battlefields in the U.S. → Category:American Civil War battlefields

— Eoghanacht ^talk 13:29, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

I didn't understand your last message: Categories: Dang! I didn't even know that one existed. These categories don't exist (except for "war"). My editing is all over the map, so I thought I would consult someone with more experience is the civil war field (i.e. you) before I create them myself. And feel free to add to my stubs — that's what it's all about. — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:42, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Although I have encountered some overly nitpicky categorization myself, I think that grouping preserved battle sites by theme could be a genuinely helpful way for people to navigate/browse like items. For the Civil War, specifically, it could group the sites protected by various fed, state, and local governments. For example: Fort Pulaski National Monument, Fort McAllister Historic Park, Ox Hill Battlefield Park would be naturals for such a category.

On second thought, though, I don't think that a "by-country" approach is particularly useful, particularly for the world wars. Nor is "battlefield" the right name, as USS Arizona Memorial and Fort McHenry are not "fields."

My current idea (to sleep on for a couple days):

Category:War → Category:Battle sites → Category:American Civil War battle sites

— Eoghanacht ^talk 15:55, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Battles and year categories

Thanks for pointing that out; I hadn't realized the year category would already be present in the campaign. -- Kirill Lokshin 16:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I understood what you meant about the intended structure; the battle categories in general tend to be broken or unfinished more often than not. However, I'm currently categorizing the articles in Category:Battle stubs, of which the categorized-by-campaign Civil War articles are only a small part. -- Kirill Lokshin 17:46, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

VMI peer review

You've worked on the VMI article. I have posted the article Virginia Military Institute at Wikipedia:Peer review/Virginia Military Institute/archive1 and would appreciate your comments. Rillian 14:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on my talk page

Since you are continuing to make a number of edits to Ulysses S. Grant, I am going to take a break and stop making interim corrections until it settles down.

It's your decision, but it doesn't bother me at all. In fact, I have found your edits very helpful.

One temporary comment however: the phrase "on the shelf" is rather colloquial for an encyclopedia article, particularly one with an international audience.

I agree. I'll make it better. I couldn't think of anything else at the time :-/

You were correct on your change regarding the Army of Tennessee being a reappointment; my mistake.

We all get lucky once in a while.

By the way, you should look into the history of that page and see what it was like before I added the small amount of military campaign detail that you have been expanding. Pitiful.

I guess I was just lucky. the military campaign detail is the part that I know the best. As a newbie, it is the best topic for me to "cut my teeth on". Sorry for using another colloquialism :-D

Most editors here are more interested in slamming Grant as president.

I saw the ignorant comments about heroin on the discussion page. That is sad. I know his presidency was not entirely bad, and based upon my understanding of the political situation at that time, I'd even go so far to say that his presidency was irrelevant. Firstly, if he hadn't won the war, there would not be much of a presidency to worry about. And Secondly, the time period immediately succeeding the Civil War was extremely tenuous. There was a high risk of insurgency, and what was more important than whether administration members were completely honest was that the man at the top was not perceived of as punitive by the South. In this sense, his presidency was a great success. Nevertheless, I understand that these feelings do not belong in a resource such as wikipedia.

I am a big fan of his, although I try to suppress the tendency of some to turn biography into hagiography.

I too; I am sure you can tell. On a lark, my son and I went to Vickburg military park 3 years ago. It was a fantastic experience, but one in which I found out how ignorant I was. I have always considered myself rather knowledgeable regarding history. And here was this man that carried out this brilliant plan, and I hardly knew a thing about him. That was the beginning of the journey for both my son and me, studying the Civil War. We now plan our vacations around visiting battlefields. Next week, in fact, my brother is getting married in Shreveport, Louisiana, so my son and I are going to Mansfield battlefield.

I welcome another Wikipedia participant who actually knows things about the military aspects the Civil War.

ty. Seeing all the contributions you have made, I am honored that you have taken the time to communicate with and counsel me.

Surprisingly few people editing here are interested in that. I have I have written or edited a few hundred articles on Civil War topics and have created an informal style guide that describes the formatting conventions I have tried to use to make them more consistent. I would welcome any comments you might have.

I glanced at your style guide, and I will review it more deeply.

Also, since you say in your User page that you are interested in the more violent episodes, feel free to correspond with me directly as I am mostly responsible for the articles on the battles you have cited. (I certainly agree that Franklin is one of the most interesting battles, but that it has very little public awareness. I can't say that I am as excited about the Confederate defense against Hancock's charge in Spotsylvania. Old Bald Head really bollixed that one up.) Hal Jespersen 15:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You must be referring to Ewell. Lee cannot be entirely absolved either. He is the one who sent away the artillery from the tip of the salient the prior evening. Yes the rebels may have been caught off guard. But with 20,000 men crashing into their lines in the rain and murky darkness of predawn, who can blame them? I wonder how under even the best of circumstances that an assault of that magnitude did not break their lines. Don Bertsch

Out of curiosity, where do you get your UTC timestamp from? And is it better to use UTC than time displayed in my own timezone?

Hey there! Newbie asks for some advice from a veteran (so to speak)

I was adding some links to the Committee on the Conduct, when I noticed that the American Civil War article lacked links to the Official Records. I was wondering: Do you think OR deserves its own article? BusterD 15:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you look over my article?

I'd love to hear what you think, this is all so new, I'm looking for strong feedback.

Official Records of the American Civil War

Thanks!

Please look again, and please fix whatever you think needs fixing. I'll learn from that just as well.

Thanks again for the start. I want to wiki right for Diderot.

BusterD 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Much clearer. Thanks for the example. BusterD 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mumford

Thanks for cleaning that article up! I did it pretty quickly without checking over it really and then had to take a bit of a break. By the way, I'm excited about filling in some of the more unusual individuals and stories from the Civil War. I also did Champ Ferguson and Henry Hotze the other day. However, I would also really like to help with some of the important articles on the battles and regiments, etc. It's still a bit frustrating to me that we do not have articles for some significant battles and military units. As an experienced editor in this area, do you have any suggestions of where I can help the most? Tfine80 22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Commercial Links

Hey there, I noticed that you reverted some links that I added to certain towns in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle region. I didn't intend to include them as merely "ads", but many of those local businesses are in historic buildings or share different aspects of local history in their websties, especially the Bed & Breakfasts that reside in old plantation homes and farmhouses. I understand your logic in deleting them, but don't you agree that we should be adding links based on the content of the websites and their relevance to the town they're included with? I also thought that such links added a face to a Wiki article. I wasn't trying to trash the articles up or anything, I promise ;) Thank you for your work and I enjoy your articles. --Caponer 18:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Vaoverland

A couple of things. First, I just saw your user-created image (Image:Jackson Valley Campaign Part1.jpg) and wanted to compliment you. What a nice piece of work~ Should you find the time, we could use a much simpler one in the Historic Triangle article, showing Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown, and the Colonial Parkway which links them. I also wanted you to know that we were able to determine from multiple sources that William Mahone's middle name was Thomas. He apparently, chose to not use it, and those writing of him have respected that. However son, his William T. Mahone Jr. used the middle initial and name, and it is fairly well documented through Mahone family sources. I completed my relocation this summer to a rural portion of James City County near Williamsburg. Although we will be unpacking for years, the slightly milder climate and the much more bucolic surroundings are a welcome improvement from our longtime home in busy Richmond. Lastly, if you like the "Talk Box" on my user and talk pages, I know how to make one quickly for you. It really helps when people leave messages. Try it, you'll like it. Just let me know.

Mark in Historic Triangle Vaoverland 02:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Historic Triangle, William T. Mahone Sr.

Based upon the Jackson Valley image, I was assuming you have access to some kind of stock maps which you can then label. What we need for the Historic Triangle article is just a basic stock map of the Virginia Peninsula showing enough of James City County and York County that the "triangle" relationship of the three points, Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown can be shown, ideally as they are linked by the Colonial Parkway. Not a perfect triangle, since Williamsburg is more in the center, but I didn't coin the term Historic Triangle.

I have taken a shot at it by looking for extant maps. The major problem is that Jamestown largely disappeared from the maps after the early 18th century,and only reappeared in the mid 1950s with the 1957 350th anniversary event.

Hope that clarifies my request.

On the William Mahone matter, i have made adjustments in the articles on him and his family. Since he preferred just "William Mahone" (which was used by at least 3 of his immediate ancestors, including the one who came from Ireland), and was generally referred to by those two words only, I don't see any reason to change it to reflect his middle name or initial in the many civil war, political, and railroad articles. And yes, chasing this down has been interesting. Ultimately, it was the genealogy folks who had the answer, not the railroad, Virginia history, or civil war buffs.

Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia, Vaoverland 00:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Historic Triangle Map

I was just envisioning something that would show the outline of the portion of the peninsula nearby, the points of Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown, and the Colonial Parkway connecting them. I found one I liked, but would have to use as a basis for tracing to be original, and I am not that good with drawing. Would that picture help, and how can i get it to you without uploading copyrighted stuff? My e-mail is vgn700@aol.com if you want to drop me an e-mail address. Thanks. Mark. Vaoverland 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The draft was with the one revision was great. If you are ready, please post it. My thanks. Mark. Vaoverland 15:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A bit of random discussion

We had talked earlier this year a bit about Little Round Top, and I commented that I wondered what would have happened had Longstreet pressed the issue of shifting around the south flank of the Union Army. I have since gotten my hands on the first two books of the "Gettysburg" series by Newt Gingrich, and I was wondering if you had an opinion on them, especially since I consider you to be one of the really good Civil War historians on Wikipedia? Thanks! --Martin Osterman 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Vicksburg photo

Hi, I'll see what I can do to improve the photo. --JW1805 16:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Lightened it up a bit (see Image:Lincoln and Davis Statue.jpg). Probably will try to tweak a bit more, but not sure how much better I can make it. --JW1805 02:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Old Jack and peaches

One of our good old IP addresses has edited the lemon section, and switched Old Jack to peaches. I figured you would know how to handle this; I have no facts. <gr> Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 22:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Old Jack

Touché. I knew you would be the one to find out. BTW< thanks again for the image for Historic Triangle. Mark Vaoverland 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

nice job

Looking over your shoulder, I like the way you handled that. <gr> Mark Vaoverland 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Army of the Tennesse

Nice job on the Army of the Tennessee rewrite!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the American Civil War

Could you please revisit the discussion, read my comments there and consider changing your vote?

I think two reasons used to delete this are faulty:

1. This list includes information which would be lost if categorized. Categories cannot list the date and manner of death in a organized manner as lists do. Categorizing would lose the info.
2. Wikipedia is not a memorial doesn't apply as that rule is for people who do not deserve an article. These people played major roles in the American Civil War and therefore do not fall under the memorial clause of WP:NOT. They already have articles, and lists listing closely related people should not be deleted because they happen to be dead.

Thanks for your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Crater white Union troops killing black soldiers

Here is link confirming info. that I added: [5]

It is often difficult for modern-day observers to countenance how cruelly the Union Army treated black soldiers (though you were probably right to insist on sourcing that material). Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

Jackson's pneumonia

As our unofficial guardian of Old Jack here on WP, you may wish to take a look at the latest edit regarding Jackson's pneumonia and the cause. At the least, the additions are misspelled. <gr> Mark Vaoverland 01:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Towels

I knew you would be the one to straighten this out. Cheers. Mark Vaoverland 01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Solitary years

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimWae#solitary_years --JimWae 01:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Source for Term "Second War of American Secession

The Real Lincoln, by Thomas Dilorenzo, for one.

MSTCrow 08:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you should come up with a more credible source. How about something from Weekly World News? Hal Jespersen 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Maintained}}

The point of this template is not to identify "owners" or "principal contributors" of the content, necessarily, but to list people who are monitoring the article for vandalism and who know about the topic. This is mainly to let readers know that someone is making sure the article's content stays factual/verifiable, and that the reader can contact somebody to verify facts/sources. I would place it on any articles the you either started or have read/sourced completely, and are currently monitoring for vandalism. Think of it as an identification of accountability. For instructions on using it, see Template talk:Maintained. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 19:07

• I've only been using the template on the articles I've put the most research/work into. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 01:00

Barnstar!

		An Award
		I award this Epic Barnstar to Hal Jespersen (aka Hlj) for his tireless work on articles referring to the American Civil War, and for his dedication to American history and history in general. Keep up the good work! --Vortex 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw you were getting ready for vacation, and figured that the timing was appropriate. Besides, you'd only gotten one Barnstar previously -- I know how hard you work on those articles. I'll admit, you've made a good impression on me since I started here (and if nothing else, I'd like to be more like you in Wiki). So congrats again, and enjoy! --Vortex 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, optimally, I'd like to spend not as much time as you do, but still get as much done. :-) Since I'm a student that makes it doubly interesting (but Christmas Break is a good time to get article rewrites done). I'll also list myself as a maintainer of Gettysburg, Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg in case people can't reach you while on vacation. --Vortex 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fort Sumter flags

Hello,

I answered to your edit on the talk page : Talk:Fort Sumter--Teofilo talk 12:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

American Revolution

Hello. I just want to ask you a question, cause you're an expert. Do you think Category:American Revolution people should be renamed to "American Revolutionary War people" ? - Darwinek 15:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Christmas Gift

I am the one who removed the Christmas present line in the John Mosby article. First I will say that I applaude your knowlwdge on the Civil War. As an historian I find historical assumptions distasteful. Do you have evidence that Mosby's pardon was in fact a Christmas present, or are you makign that assumption because of the date? I have been unable to confirm your assertion. Can you give me a source?

I would reply directly if you had signed your post. I'll check my library when I get home from work, but here's one on the web: http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=15749418&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506037&rfi=6 Hal Jespersen 16:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Antietam

I haven't looked at the dispute thoroughly, but if it's simply based on whether the battle is considered a victory/loss for the North/South, the only thing you can do is to see what the most reputable sources have to say. Don't try to find sources that agree with the original version, or that disagree with the proposed version. Simply check as many sources as possible. If they disagree in some way, then just explain that in the article. The one-word summary is not that important. Explaining what the sources have to say is more important. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-5 23:10

• The best way to deal with such people is to ask for quotes from sources which clearly contradict what is stated in the article, and only make one reply per day, at most. Even if what they say is clearly wrong, don't feed their trolls. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-6 01:06

your request

Sure, I'll take a look late tonite. Mark Vaoverland 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pickett's Charge

I noticed on that talk page that you say "nobody in the ACW community takes that program seriously", referring to the Unsolved History episode dealing with the research and speculation into/about Pickett's Charge. Can you more fully explain the scholarship/research problems with that show, or that episode in particular? Unitedstreaming.com makes it available for public use, and I would hate to refer my students to material that is problematic or erroneous. Many thanks, OCDPard 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)OCDPard

Union Army Regiments & "Paddy" O'Rorke

I saw your comments and prepared a response. evrik 20:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw you reverted the edit of "Paddy" O'Rorke's name. Most people referred to him as Paddy. If you care so much about the name, perhaps you shoudl create his currently empty page. evrik 15:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

your request again

I didn't get to it last night, but will try to keep my promise to your tonight. I am currently working with limited Internet access (temporary) Mark Vaoverland 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read the article and the related text on the talk page. I think you have documented the presentation much better than most WP articles. Regarding possible POV, the article's pros and cons seem balanced as a whole to me. Mark Vaoverland 23:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

peace, perhaps

I couldn't agree with you more about a strong preference about working on content vs. controversy. I have run into a few extremists and argumentative type WP contributors, and have dropped working on a few articles where such warfare seems to find longevity. Personally, I am pretty neutral on the American Civil War, as it seems to me to have been a national tragedy in some ways that the regional differences weren't resolved more peacefully. I hope you will not be discouraged from your ongoing fine work. Best wishes from the Historic Triangle, Mark. Vaoverland 02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Fort Donelson, Home Sweet Home

I deleted and reverted the Fort Donelson page as requested. I must make a general comment though. Fort Donelson is in my backyard. I've studied it all of my life. My ancestors fought there. To the local people it is one big ball of wax. The history of Fort Donelson is the battle first and then the National Park Service part of the equation, not the other way around. I'm not trying to start anything. I'm merely telling you how we locals see the situation and too us that is all that really matters. It all boils down too the fact that Fort Donelson is our Home Sweet Home. --Bumpusmills1 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Monty Meigs and other stuff

Hi: I think that we might be tripping over each other in the Reference section - or maybe that was someone else, but it looks okay now. Here is my dilemma. I added more or less the same section on the Pension Building to Montgomery Meigs - the National Building Museum and to Caspar Buberl - because it more or less belongs in all three, the secret, I believe, being the "less" part. So, someone with an interest in the museum part has edited that section, and you should feel free to pare off any unnecessary part in Montgomery Meigs and I'll do the same to Buberl. If you think that it's okay as it is, feel free to leave it. Is this making sense ? Carptrash 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

James Kelly - artist

By one of those odd set of circumstances that make this world such an amazing place to live in, a photo of Kelly's statue of Buford already existed on wikipedia. It just was not linked to any article, having been previously removed from Gettysburg Battlefield. So I linked them up , made a few other additions to the James Kelly article, and am poking around my bookshelves for more. Carptrash 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia in the Civil War

Hi Hal, about five or six other contributors and I are trying to refurbish and greatly improve the West Virginia article and its sub-articles. While I hail from the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia, I know little to nothing about the American Civil War in West Virginia other than its obvious effect. I was wondering if you or any of Wikipedia's other Civil War enthusiasts that you know of could assist us in any way you can in crafting a West Virginia in the Civil War article since...well...the Civil War is kind of an integral period of our state's history. You've created and improved so many fabulous Civil War articles, some of which helped tutor me through two semesters of Civil War History at Virginia Tech. We would truly appreciate it! --Caponer 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

VMI again

Hal, I noticed Rillian keeps reverting changes made to VMI's archived talk pages. I'm trying to keep the page clear of all the nonsensical banter that other folks (I think citadel folks) keep adding. He's reverted my changes and several others and I wanted to see if you could weigh in and add to your previous archives. The post about the pulitzer prize is the only useful info, the merging of the ratline, african-american, etc. is outdated and has already been accomplished. Thanks in advance for your help. Tuf 16:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here. The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy ^e 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilson's Wharf

No! I was usuing the infromation from the template in the article. Can you please correct my error and the template if it is wrong? Thanks! Mark Vaoverland 20:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Between us, I think it is fixed now. Please take a look at the new Fort Pocahontas article and comment or imrpove as you see fit. <gr> Mark Vaoverland 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

References

Hi, I happened to notice this edit of yours regarding User:Rjensen's practice of putting editorial comments in references. We're having a lively discussion about this at User talk:Rjensen. I would appreciate your input. --JW1805 (Talk) 20:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Questia

Hi Hal, thanks for the comment. It seems to me that Questia is a bookseller. Sure it may have some limited free content (but so does Amazon.com which lets you view reviews as well as ToC and excerpts). I just don't think we should provide free advertisement for this site (it may be a great site...I might just subscribe to it myself, but that doesn't change my opinion). I think ISBNs should be used (with Questia on the "Book sources" page like all the others), and/or links to free sites (like Gutenburg if available). --JW1805 (Talk) 18:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Historic Triangle and Colonial Parkway

Your map has been added to the Colonial Parkway article. Thanks again for your excellent contribution of this custom work. Mark (still Lost in Virginia) Vaoverland 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Spring

I drove over there (about 15 miles from where I live), and to be more accurate, the location of Green Spring Plantation is about where the second G in Green Spring is, slightly above (or NW) of VA Route 5 on the map. This was my error in what I gave you and approved before you posted the image.

The head of Friends of Green Spring, Dr. Daniel Lovelace, was really appreciative of my article and the DYK publicity, and has added me to his correspondence!! They are ramping up for a 2008 opening of the next phase (at the conclusion of Jamestown 2007).

If you ever get a chance to correct that, and add the word Plantation, it would be great. (There are a bunch of other things nearby named Green Spring and incorrectly, Green Springs and Greensprings). However, your map is still very good and better than anything I have seen on the Internet defining the Historic Triangle and/or the Colonial Parkway. Mark Vaoverland 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Spring map change

As it always seems, your detailed work is right on target, notwithstanding my earlier error. Thanks! Mark Vaoverland 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)