User talk:TwoScars/Archive 4
 | This 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Your GA nomination of Battle of the Wilderness
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Wilderness you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of the Wilderness
The article Battle of the Wilderness you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Battle of the Wilderness for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Violette's Lock
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Violette's Lock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Violette's Lock
The article Violette's Lock you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Violette's Lock for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Violette's Lock
The article Violette's Lock you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Violette's Lock for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of St. Michaels
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of St. Michaels you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of St. Michaels
The article Battle of St. Michaels you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of St. Michaels for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Second Battle of St. Michaels
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Battle of St. Michaels you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Second Battle of St. Michaels
The article Second Battle of St. Michaels you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Second Battle of St. Michaels for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Second Battle of St. Michaels
The article Second Battle of St. Michaels you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Battle of St. Michaels for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of Cedar Creek
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Cedar Creek you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of Cedar Creek
The article Battle of Cedar Creek you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't get discouraged...
Cedar Creek's a nice article.. it's well researched and is close to GA. You've done great with it so far! Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of Cedar Creek
The article Battle of Cedar Creek you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Cedar Creek for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Reply sent
Replied with a little of the information that I will be posting. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
July 28: You're invited! Food Deserts & Food Policy in Indianapolis editathon
 |
Upcoming Indianapolis event - July 28: Food Deserts & Food Policy |   |
|---|---|---|
|
You are invited to join us at Ruth Lilly Law Library for an edit-a-thon on Food Deserts & Food Policy hosted by Ruth Lilly Law Library and United States National Agricultural Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on food deserts, nutrition, and related local and federal food policy.
Visit the Wikipedia/Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)
GAN
Would you have any interest in doing the GA review for Battle of Front Royal? I know you're familiar with that theater of the war, and it would be nice to have someone familiar with the material look it over since I'm much more familiar with the fighting in Missouri and Arkansas than in Virginia. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, I can do it. However, I have only done informal Peer Reviews. I know I can follow Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, but I may need help on procedure. Visiting family today—will check back Monday. TwoScars (talk) 13:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's pretty straightforward and you've seen plenty of GAN reviewing from the article writer's side. Mainly just making sure the sources aren't garbage, I didn't get anything wrong or miss anything, the images aren't blatant copyright violations, and the writing is comprehensible. (As I live in the Ozarks, the last one is sometimes an issue for me). Hog Farm Talk 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry this is taking so long - I wasn't very busy when I rewrote the article, but work has suddenly gotten really hectic, on top of trying to read through ~150 pages of Ecelbarger. Once I can get through Ecelbarger and the aftermath, it should be fairly quick to finish it off. (I've commuted a total of over 500 miles to client sites for work over the last three days, the rest of the week should be better). Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Relax Relax Relax - family and work are most important. No hurry here. I'm setting up a new computer at home. TwoScars (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- I should be able to get through this over the weekend. Work was pretty bad this week. Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Relax Relax Relax - family and work are most important. No hurry here. I'm setting up a new computer at home. TwoScars (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry this is taking so long - I wasn't very busy when I rewrote the article, but work has suddenly gotten really hectic, on top of trying to read through ~150 pages of Ecelbarger. Once I can get through Ecelbarger and the aftermath, it should be fairly quick to finish it off. (I've commuted a total of over 500 miles to client sites for work over the last three days, the rest of the week should be better). Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- It's pretty straightforward and you've seen plenty of GAN reviewing from the article writer's side. Mainly just making sure the sources aren't garbage, I didn't get anything wrong or miss anything, the images aren't blatant copyright violations, and the writing is comprehensible. (As I live in the Ozarks, the last one is sometimes an issue for me). Hog Farm Talk 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
End of the American Civil War
I have made the change to May 26, 1865 as the end if the war date, supported by comprehensive footnotes in the text and even additions to my talk page threads. I also made additions and changes to the End of the War section to cover all the major events at the end of the war, and prevent any objections based on them not being mentioned or being misinterpreted. Even if a little long for a section, I think it is not too long and in fact is necessary. No objections or attempted substantive changes have been made for 10 days so I think the changes and additions will hold. I probably won't revisit that article for a long time, if ever. I have had a severe leg muscle injury, and added to other real life matters, I may not be online much for a few weeks but I will not have gone inactive if I am not seen around much for a while. Donner60 (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Indiana Glass Company
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Indiana Glass Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Indiana Glass Company
The article Indiana Glass Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Indiana Glass Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). 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 doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Shiloh
I'll try to take a look this coming week Hog Farm Talk 21:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! This is a long article with lots of footnotes—I was worried that nobody would want to look at it. As info: In the current Battle of Shiloh, I thought that four paragraphs devoted to Lew Wallace's division missing the first day was a waste of time. Wallace did not fight on the first day, and did not do much on the second. Also, the article did not mention "The Crossroads", where much of the fighting happened. The draft does not have some of the quotes that are in the current article—I was not sure if they were worthy of being in. TwoScars (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC) I think Hal's maps look better, but there are not enough of them—and I could not really use them to show the progress of the battle. That is why I used the army maps. TwoScars (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've left comments on the material through the orbat section at User talk:TwoScars/sandbox2. I'm going slower to periodically just check things to sources (my wife commented on the large stack of books next to me during dinner). So far one minor accuracy concern, a suggestion of an improved source basis for the naming issue, and some minor quibbles. I do personally think its best to work in the various key commander's names in the background, to make things clearer for readers not familiar with the war. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. It is a lot of "stuff", and I believe it is easier to look at small portions at a time. TwoScars (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'll do another block once you get through those - I'm interested to see what Daniel says re the Forrest unattached thing. Digging into this reminds me of my childhood days with Battleground 4: Shiloh on an old Windows '95. Hog Farm Talk 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I believe I was given access to the Wikipedia Library, probably Project Muse, years ago. I used it once and have not used it for years. Also got a new MacbookPro (much faster, fewer ports) a few months ago, and did not transfer any bookmarks. What is the procedure to get into the library, and where is it? TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- The main portal is accessed through WP:TWL. I use JSTOR through there a lot for Arkansas topics because they've got access to back issues of The Arkansas Historical Quarterly. I believe Project MUSE access is now application limited; I applied a month or so ago and got accepted after a few days. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I believe I was given access to the Wikipedia Library, probably Project Muse, years ago. I used it once and have not used it for years. Also got a new MacbookPro (much faster, fewer ports) a few months ago, and did not transfer any bookmarks. What is the procedure to get into the library, and where is it? TwoScars (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'll do another block once you get through those - I'm interested to see what Daniel says re the Forrest unattached thing. Digging into this reminds me of my childhood days with Battleground 4: Shiloh on an old Windows '95. Hog Farm Talk 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at this. It is a lot of "stuff", and I believe it is easier to look at small portions at a time. TwoScars (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've left comments on the material through the orbat section at User talk:TwoScars/sandbox2. I'm going slower to periodically just check things to sources (my wife commented on the large stack of books next to me during dinner). So far one minor accuracy concern, a suggestion of an improved source basis for the naming issue, and some minor quibbles. I do personally think its best to work in the various key commander's names in the background, to make things clearer for readers not familiar with the war. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I got a copy of Daniel for $3 at a local charity sale today so I can consult him directly now. Hog Farm Talk 00:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I bought my Daniel book used too, but you beat me on price. TwoScars (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry this is taking so long - I got busy all of a sudden last week. I'm going to be traveling for work for much of this week and will probably be unable to look into this very much because I don't think I'll have room to pack any books except for the one I'm currently reading through. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
- I bought my Daniel book used too, but you beat me on price. TwoScars (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. 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. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
You're invited! Environmental Justice editathons in Indianapolis & Bloomington
|
|
Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons 2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option) |
|
|---|---|---|
|
You are invited to join us for a multi-site editathon organized by Indiana Wikimedians at IUPUI University Library in downtown Indianapolis and the Herman B Wells Library at IU Bloomington (with virtual option). Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors, with faculty subject matter experts, will collaboratively improve articles on environmental justice in Indiana and globally. Join us at either location or virtually!
Visit the meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC).)
The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
You're invited! In-person WikiConference North America Meetup in Indianapolis!
 |
Nov. 11-13: WikiConference North American Meetup! IUPUI University Library (and around Indianapolis) |
 |
|---|---|---|
|
Registration is now open for WikiConference North America 2022 (Nov. 11–13) held jointly with Mapping USA! If you would like to experience this virtual event in-person, you are welcome to join our meetup in Indianapolis! We will be meeting at IUPUI University Library for the weekend, with AV set up for conference streaming and presenting (for those who've submitted proposals). Anyone is welcome to join, we will have some light refreshments and are planning evening activities. Feel free to join us for an activity, a day, or the whole weekend. Please let us know you are coming via the meetup page and please register for the conference. We will share more about in-person activities on the meetup page as they are finalized. Visit the WikiConference North America site for the schedule and visit our meetup page to sign up and learn more. And don't forget to register for the conference! |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 17:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC).)
The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
|
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} | 
|
Donner60 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Happy New Year! |
Hello TwoScars: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this messageCAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
March 17: You're invited! Indiana Women in the Arts editathon
 |
Upcoming Indianapolis event March 17: Indiana Women in the Arts |
|
|---|---|---|
|
You are invited to join us at Newfields for an edit-a-thon on Indiana women in the arts, co-hosted by Wikimedians of Indiana and IUPUI University Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on women artists and artworks of Indiana.
Visit the Wikipedia Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more. |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 21:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC).)
The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Shiloh
Just wanted to let you know that the only reason I haven't reviewed this one is because I did the informal peer review and think it would be best for another editor to take the GA review. It does pain me to watch it sit around unreviewed, though. Hog Farm Talk 17:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Yes, I always thought you wouldn't be allowed to do the GA review—thanks for your thoughts, though. The article is long and complicated, so I understand why others are not interested in reviewing it. I suggested to someone who was making small changes to it that they review it, but they were not interested. Right now, the new system for the lists of GA to be reviewed might be hurting me. I know it means well, but it somehow should take into consideration the number of views a page gets. In the meantime, I am looking for articles that would be easier for me to review: U.S. glass companies, Civil War battles, and U.S. freight railroads. I found Fore River Railroad, but I told the writer that I would not review it unless a few things were fixed. TwoScars (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
In appreciation
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar | |
| For your help in saving Battle of Gettysburg at GAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC) |
Your GA nomination of Battle of Shiloh
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Shiloh you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've watchlisted the GAN page out of interest. There's two decent libraries near me, so if you run across something that needs research, I can try to help out if you're stuck. Hog Farm Talk 16:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Thanks for the offer and for all your previous assistance. My biggest problem right now is that someone made numerous edits this morning using a different citation style and at least one footnote with no citation. TwoScars (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: It is done - Good Article for Battle of Shiloh. I hope the reviewer is not saying to himself "never again". We'll see how long it goes before someone that is not in WikiProject Military history starts changing it. TwoScars (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I'll watchlist the article to try to help keep an eye out for disruption. That reminds me I still need to finish off User:Hog Farm/Siege of Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 22:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: It is done - Good Article for Battle of Shiloh. I hope the reviewer is not saying to himself "never again". We'll see how long it goes before someone that is not in WikiProject Military history starts changing it. TwoScars (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Thanks for the offer and for all your previous assistance. My biggest problem right now is that someone made numerous edits this morning using a different citation style and at least one footnote with no citation. TwoScars (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Shiloh Pass
hey, I'm gonna Pass Shiloh. Some of the writing is a little weak. You might wanna get a copy editor on it if you're headed for FAC. Congrats! § Lingzhi (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of Shiloh
The article Battle of Shiloh you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Shiloh for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Shiloh/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
(Thanks to Alan Liefting)
So, to get your precious Good Article rating, you just removed the material I added to the article, without ever asking me if I had sources for it, which I did. You sacrificed improvements to the article to get your little award - what a GREAT way to serve our readers! I hope you're pleased with yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep this on your page to remind yourself what our purpose here is - and just to give you a clue, it ain't collecting ribbons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) - I think there's a certain degree of WP:ONUS here as well. If you can't be bothered to source it, don't add it, especially when the article has been heavily rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 05:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have added the cites when I added the info, agreed. But TwoScars manage to take the time to warn me on my talk page that the article was in review (which I didn't know - why would I? I don't check the talk page before I edit an article.), but didn't bother to say "BTW, your additions are unsourced, could you please provide refs?", at which I would have complied. No, it was more important for them to get their bauble and add another article to their precious list of "accomplishments" then it was to provide a courtesy to a fellow editor. Screw collegiality, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Hard to believe someone who has been around Wikipedia so long would: a) make uncited changes to a long and detailed article; b) make changes while the article is being reviewed; and c) be the cause of over half the problems the reviewer had with the article—and yet be upset when some of the changes were reverted. (Actually some of the changes were, in-effect, used or modified or caused additions to the Reactions and significance section.) TwoScars (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
You're invited! Indiana Politics & Government Editathon on Saturday, May 13
| Upcoming Indianapolis event - May 13: Indiana Politics & Government 2023 | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
It's been an eventful state legislative session in Indiana, and local elections took place this week, so we have lots to cover! You are invited to The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis for a Politics & Government editathon to improve write articles about local political and government topics of interest and improve information about local officials, candidates, elections, and legislation. Come join us at this fun venue, with free parking and refreshments provided!
We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Wikimedians in Indiana User Group |
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 01:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC).)
The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Informal review request
Would you be willing to look over Battle of Clark's Mill against the B-class criteria? I just destubbed it, and it turned out to be a more frustrating process than I expected. The Confederates of course didn't leave reports, and while the Official Records contain four Union reports, only one of the four is by someone at the battle, and they make outlandish claims of Confederate casualties. Even my collection of obscure Ozarks Civil War literature doesn't shed much light on this; I'm surprised the CWSAC considered this one of the 384 most important battles. I know of (by reputation, not by sight) of a locally-published 200-page (!) book about the battle and town of Vera Cruz from the 80s or 90s, but I think the odds of it meeting RS standards are fairly low. Personally, I don't think this is really GAN-able, but at least it ain't a stub.Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Be glad to look over it. Will get to it today and/or tomorrow hopefully. "Clark's Mill helped the Confederates to maintain a toehold in southwest Missouri" seems to be the theme with this battle. Is the book the one by Jack C. Vineyard? It might be all you can find. TwoScars (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Referencing and citation definitely now OK. Coverage and accuracy is improved, and I am not sure if you will be able to gather much else. Structure now has the standard Background, Battle, and Aftermath. You might be able to add an Opposing forces section between Background and Battle using most of the first paragraph under Battle. I'm a big fan of images, and often West Virginia does not offer any good images for a battle. West Virginia often refers to the county since there was sometimes not much else there. I use Wikimedia's county maps in the Info box such as in Battle of White Sulphur Springs. I also raid the Library of Congress: maps and Newspapers. Maps can get cropped and or modified in Excel, but then one should put some sources in the map's description. For me (not for B-Class), a second paragraph in the Lead that covered the aftermath and the effect and importance of the battle might be useful. Just noticed Dubuque, Arkansas. I think that town does not exist anymore, so the red field will never be fixed. Maybe it could be reworded to Boone County, Arkansas. That's all I have, unless you notice something. TwoScars (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Copy vios OK; Alt= flags the image in the Infox box and the flags; Checklinks OK; Reflinks OK; Word OK. TwoScars (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Will try to see what I can find for a map. I was actually able to throw together a short little article for Dubuque. As to the Vineyard book, that is the one I'm aware of. The Wilson's Creek Nat'l Battlefield library has a copy or two, but I personally don't think it would meet wikipedia's RS definition - very locally published, author was just the landowner of the battlefield, and I'm not seeing evidence of it being used as a source in RS. I'm thinking that this is B-class able, but certainly no shot at GA. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion
The article 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion for comments about the article, and Talk:23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
DYK for Battle of Shiloh
On 3 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Shiloh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the time, the Battle of Shiloh was the largest battle fought in the United States, with nearly 24,000 casualties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Shiloh. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Shiloh), 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.
The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
DYK for 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion
On 20 June 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that by September 29, 1864, the 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion only had 78 enlisted men present for duty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 23rd Virginia Infantry Battalion), 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.
Your GA nomination of Novelty Glass Company
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Novelty Glass Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Novelty Glass Company
The article Novelty Glass Company you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Novelty Glass Company for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
| Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. | |
The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
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)
The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of Charleston (1862)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Charleston (1862) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Battle of Charleston (1862)
The article Battle of Charleston (1862) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Charleston (1862) for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Charleston (1862)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Citing the Official Records
In the past, the whole work of the ORs has pretty much always been cited, either as Official Records [date] or by using the editors of the overall series. I've started to wonder though, if it would be more informative to cite the individual reports/correspondence/etc in a book directly, like we would in a book with multiple chapters by different authors.
So say, at John Bullock Clark instead of citing Official Records 1899, p. 755 and Official Records 1899, p. 870, we would have Sheridan 1899, p. 755 and Sheridan 1899, p. 870
with the long citations as
- Sheridan, P. H. (1899). "Letter to Hon. E. M. Stanton, September 28, 1865". In Ainsworth, Fred C.; Kirkley, Joseph W. (eds.). The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 2. Vol. VIII. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. p. 755. OCLC 427057.
- Sheridan, P. H. (1899). "Letter to Brig. Gen. E. D. Townsend, January 24, 1866". In Ainsworth, Fred C.; Kirkley, Joseph W. (eds.). The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. 2. Vol. VIII. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. p. 870. OCLC 427057.
Now this would be a bit more work, especially in setting up the long citations, although you could copy-and-paste most of the code and only change the author, title, and page number(s) when citing within the same volume multiple times. But I do think there would be some benefit to doing this - as it is, the reader has to dig into the ORs themselves to determine what report or correspondence is being cited and who wrote it but this would provide more information upfront. But before I start citing things this way, I wanted to get a bit of a sanity check to see if the extra effort is worth it. Also pinging Donner60 and BusterD. Hog Farm Talk 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: I'll start doing this if we have a consensus to do it that way. I like the idea. The only drawback I see is that it will increase the number of items in the Reference section, which will result in a higher Page length in bytes (and I always have problems with too big of a Page length). TwoScars (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:, @TwoScars: I agree that there would be some benefit in the full citation in many cases, but perhaps not necessary in all. I am inclined to think that it would be a "best practice", not necessarily required in all cases. Off the top of my head, I don't recall citing the Official Records much so I can't say what I have been doing. The text that I would likely write for many of the excerpts might read: "In a letter (or official report), Sheridan wrote to Stanton that..." or a shorter form of that, supported by a citation. There might be instances, however, where a statement would be cited as a fact that would then need a citation of the source. The longer form would be better in that case especially, in my opinion. I think we would not want to review existing articles to make changes, but might do so if we come across an instance where it would be helpful. I think you are not suggesting such a project. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:, @Donner60: I agree that I would not want to go back to old articles and update their Reference sections, only future ones. The Official Record can be an important source for those (like me) that write about less famous battles. I know relying on the OR too much can be frowned upon, so I now like to write "General X reported...." (like Donner60) in cases where the OR might have questionable information or information manipulated by an officer to make his unit look better. I have a backlog of about six warfare articles already written but not reviewed, but going forward I will use the more–informative method if you agree that it is better to use that method. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Likewise, I don't think we should spend time to change these in existing articles but I think it's worth it going forward in at least some situations.. I find citing the ORs most useful for ships, particularly those that served on inland rivers - the secondary sources often will just gloss over the service of a tinclad or something as patrolling on the rivers for a lengthy period of time, while the ORs often include detailed log excerpts or at least station assignments. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:, @TwoScars: I think we are agreed to use the revised citation form going forward unless there is some obvious reason that another form would be sufficient. (I can't think of one off the top of my head.) We won't embark on or recommend a project to revise existing citations. I assume we could make changes at our option if we are revising or improving an article but I wouldn't expect to spend much time on it in most cases. Further thoughts? Donner60 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- Likewise, I don't think we should spend time to change these in existing articles but I think it's worth it going forward in at least some situations.. I find citing the ORs most useful for ships, particularly those that served on inland rivers - the secondary sources often will just gloss over the service of a tinclad or something as patrolling on the rivers for a lengthy period of time, while the ORs often include detailed log excerpts or at least station assignments. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:, @Donner60: I agree that I would not want to go back to old articles and update their Reference sections, only future ones. The Official Record can be an important source for those (like me) that write about less famous battles. I know relying on the OR too much can be frowned upon, so I now like to write "General X reported...." (like Donner60) in cases where the OR might have questionable information or information manipulated by an officer to make his unit look better. I have a backlog of about six warfare articles already written but not reviewed, but going forward I will use the more–informative method if you agree that it is better to use that method. TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:, @TwoScars: I agree that there would be some benefit in the full citation in many cases, but perhaps not necessary in all. I am inclined to think that it would be a "best practice", not necessarily required in all cases. Off the top of my head, I don't recall citing the Official Records much so I can't say what I have been doing. The text that I would likely write for many of the excerpts might read: "In a letter (or official report), Sheridan wrote to Stanton that..." or a shorter form of that, supported by a citation. There might be instances, however, where a statement would be cited as a fact that would then need a citation of the source. The longer form would be better in that case especially, in my opinion. I think we would not want to review existing articles to make changes, but might do so if we come across an instance where it would be helpful. I think you are not suggesting such a project. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Gettysburg article changes
Somando did not contact me. No further comment needed on that. In the Staff Ride source, the reported Confederate casualty figure is admittedly an underestimate. The strengths as of May 31 are not accepted by historians because they probably changed and the Confederates no doubt had more than the low estimate now inserted. In fact, the Confederates often did not count officers. When I think to get a source or two on that, I will put both changes into one or two footnotes explaining where they come from and why they are suspect. I should be able to prevent any blowback by doing it this way, although I would prefer just to delete them. Thanks for bringing this up. Donner60 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
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) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)