User talk:Scott Mingus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is a member of the American Civil War task force
This user is a member of WikiProject Ohio.





Contents

[edit] Indian casualties at the battle of the Little Big Horn

Indian casualties at the Little Big Horn were much higher than written in the Wikipedia article. New discoveries in Indian testimonies point at least 200 dead warriors. See the Friends of the Little Big Horn newspaper: http://www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Members.htm

It's all right with Indian testimonies which always told us about a great and very hard battle (some Indians even said that the battle was not decided until the very end of the fight, for example Sitting Bull said that he had no idea of the outcome of the fight. The Sioux chief also said that Custer was always looking at the east, for support by Benteen and Reno (a support that never came - a military betrayal), and was fighting as hard as a human can do (Rain In the Face, Iron Hawk, Low Dog and many many others, see Gregory Michno's excellent book "Lakota Noon" (Mountain Press, 1997).

See also the LBH case : http://david2fg.tripod.com/uscuster.htm

[edit] liberty ships

You may wish to look at the template: Template_talk:Libship_honor Hal Jespersen 14:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James M. Smith

I have changed this to a redirect rather than a disambig page with only 1 entry Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:American Civil War Generals

It has been proposed to eliminate the Confederates from this list (as they already have their own separate category) and replace this category with Union Army Generals (which does not exist today as its own entity. I support this. Also, should there be a convention that any general should NOT be also duplicated in American Civil War people, keeping that category for civilians, politicians, spies, soldiers and other folks associated with the war, but not necessarily general officers? Your thoughts, particularly on the first question? I am willing to take the time to eliminate the references in each Confederate general's article. Scott Mingus 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. (Where was this proposed anyway? Missed it.) One lingering consideration is that some men were both Union and U.S. Army generals (post-ACW) and there were even a few CSA+USA. As to the 'people' category, I have been editing those out for generals whenever I find them. Hal Jespersen 10:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Miniature Wargaming

Thanks. You did some good work, and I was just tidying things up, though I definately should have remembered to check if the "hills" and "fences" links went to the correct articles. Grimhelm 17:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Battle of Salineville

Scott, you did a nice job editting "my" article on the Battle of Salineville. I'm not a historian. I did grow up near Salineville. Last fall I simply spent a few days searching the internet before writing the essay. Mark W. Miller

[edit] Camp Chase

I appreciated the improvements you made to the Camp Chase article. My in-laws live next to it so I strolled over and took some pictures. I built the page from the historical marker there. george 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders of Battle

Thanks for your edits. Next I hope to do OBs for some of the smaller battles like Chantilly and Iuka, and a couple of bigger battles such as Chickamauga, Second Manassas, and Antietam. In addition, I'll probably do a couple of non-Civil War OBs for Mons and Yorktown.

Also, I was wondering if some of the larger OBs like Franklin and Shiloh might look better if the info was presented in tabular form like the Gettysburg OBs. Wild Wolf 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemason recats

Think we can knock this out tonight? youngamerican (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Ohio Infantry

Wow, nice job on that article. You had far more information than I could possibly find. My plan was to make articles on the rest of them, but I didn't think it would work out. If you were to give a crack at creating the rest of the civil war regiments, that would be a great feat. --Wizardman 03:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request for assistance with Billy Bowlegs

Hi, I stumbled across your work on Halleck Tustenuggee and was impressed with the amount of detail on battles and campaigns. Since you seem to have some good sources at hand, I was wondering if you could keep an eye out for any specifics on the activities of Seminole chief Billy Bowlegs during the war. I started the bio but couldn't figure out what this "fighting in Kansas" was. I'd appreciate it. Thanks! - BT 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

BT, I will take a look over the next few days and see what I can come up with. Scott Mingus 14:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regiment issue

I have to admit being a little confused -- you restored Regiment in the 155th OVI article and then defend its deletion. My objection was never to the omission from the title of the article - it was the deletion from the article lede. So I infer that you agree with me since you did what I was going to do. David 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasons

I have new-found respect for people that undertake repetitive tasks on wikipedia. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Camp Wild Cat

I have reverted your redirect to a non-existent page. What is required is sourcing for the this battle (however spelt) on the main article. BlueValour 22:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Check - just seen your note on the main article. but leave the redirect pending the new article (which needs to be substantial enough to justify separate existence). If it is 1 para, it is better in the main article where it can be read in context. BlueValour 22:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Great; seen the new article. Good stuff. BlueValour 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Susquehanna River

Did you notice that Susquehanna River is both an article and a category (that includes the article and many other articles regarding this river)? And that the article level links I deleted were in each case already linked at the category level. By preferentially pointing users to the category, new avenues of reading and thought are opened up. Also, in general, wiki guides frown on 'duplicate' or 'double' level categorization; by having links from a location to both the article and its category, this is having a double level. I did explain this in my deletion notes by saying I was deleting 'dbl(double) lvl(level) cat(egorization)'. I hope you understand and will agree with me. Thanks. Hmains 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Hmains 16:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northwest Indian War

Could have a look at this article:

  • The layout is wrong, the introduction much too long, and the TOC appears on the second screen.
  • The sequence of events are out of order. "Background" appears after the article main body.
  • There's way too much gloating that Wikipedia has this article and other reference works don't. It needs to be toned down a bit. patsw 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Egushawa, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  11:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] August Willich

Good work on the Willich article. --DelftUser 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illinois in the Civil War

Thanks for your wonderful contributions to the Illinois in the Civil War article. Your addition of photographs, as well as your most recent enhancement of the text itself, have greatly improved this article. Keep up the good work!
Bart 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Rescue From Deletion Award For your work on 2nd Regiment of Cavalry, Massachusetts Volunteers. --evrik 13:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Rescue From Deletion Award For your work on 2nd Regiment of Cavalry, Massachusetts Volunteers. --evrik 13:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Cailloux

Thanks for your edit on the Andre Cailloux page. Looks much better. How did you happen to run across it ? I just created it yesterday and am new to Wikipedia. This kind of collaboration is really terrific. User:Mpleahy September 29, 2006.













[edit] James Ricketts

A few deays after you wrote your James Ricketts article I wrote one on my computer. I want to merge the two and I'm just giving you an advance notice. Gittes

[edit] Fort Hill

Thanks for your help with the Fort Hill article, I was there last year. I could not find much on the internet about the battle. Thanks again! Tomas417 01:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] category

Hi Scott, I noticed you added the category "New York in the Civil War" to the Alfred Waud article I created. I'm wondering what the New York connection is, as the article doesn't really support that right now - and/or if you could explain the New York connection in the text? Thanks, Outriggr 03:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbus and Xenia Railroad

Thanks for adding the role of Gov. Dennison. Sometimes I think the articles I start are never read by another living soul! george 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of board wargames

If you can find some time, I'd appreciate it if you could discuss the recategorization of Civil War games you did there a while back. I seem to have different ideas on terminology than you, and would like to get some definitions down. :) --Rindis 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk it over on Talk:List_of_board_wargames, so other people (if there are any) can chime in. At least I think I know where our difference in opinion lies... --Rindis 23:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri and Kansas in the Civil War

Thanks for your additions of categories (particuarly Kansas in Civil War). I responded to your comments on my Usertalk:Americasroof but you may have missed them because I'm a newbie to talk. As you may or may not have guessed my particular interests are Missouri and Kansas (e.g., Kansas City). I've added added a Template:Kansas in the Civil War. I actually started the rewrite of the Missouri in the Civil War but my computer crashed before the first save. Hopefully you will see umpteen revisions in the next few days/weels. I will probably also update the Kansas article but I want to make sure I capture the major events. Thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work!!! Americasroof 01:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sitting in a hotel in southern Ohio as I type this. I've been filling out Category:Kansas in the Civil War tonight, as well as Category:Missouri in the Civil War for those biographies and places not covered in your excellent template. Keep up the good work, and please join the Civil War Task Force! We'd love to have you on board. Scott Mingus 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Scott for your prompt comments! You've really added some cool stuff to Kansas. My personal history floats across the state line between in Missouri and Kansas (with majority in Missouri). While I'm normally reluctant to join task forces, I should probably join the Civil War since I kinda know how track down stuff in the two states. Thanks again and do keep up the good work. I'm always amazed at how good and comprehensive the Civil War stuff is (other than of course the nuances of the Kansas and Missouri issues). Americasroof 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Pennsylvania

There are four articles being threatened by a merge proposal. The details are listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pennsylvania#Announcements. Would you mind weighing in (hopefully in support) of keeping the articles. --evrik 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Bull Run Union OB

Got the Kanawha Division added. Thanks for making so many fixes to the OBs. (By the way, do you think the OBs look better in tabular format or the way I had them before?). Wild Wolf 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the tabular form. I used it for Bull Run.

[edit] It was nice to find you

lurking around Caspar Buberl, and i was quite thrilled to find his [my] little drummer boy on your page. As you probably know, writters of some of the more obscure topics [ie, Buberl] often wonder if anyone ever sees then and so finding that you've been there and used it is very gratifying. Most of my Civil War stuff is about the monuments but I know a lot about those so if you need any anything, please let me know. Carptrash 19:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC) PS I have, for example, some shots of Gutzon Borglum's NC Monument, which, although deeded not good enough for the Gettysburg Battlefield article [along with about 20 others that got axed worse than Picket's men] should do just fine on the Borglum page.

Your mention of the wounded NC soldier made it tough [life CAN be tough sometimes] to decide what picture to use so i made a sort of collage of two shots. Please check it out at Gutzon Borglum and if you think it doesn't work. let me know. I'm too close to be objective. Carptrash 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the photo critique. A little voice inside me was ;STRONGLY; hinting that what i did was not really what was needed, but you [always, if possible, blame someone else] got me going with the "wounded soldier" remark. Likely i'll do something to it later. I was trying to decide if i wanted to move most of the pictures [most are mine anyway] into a gallery and leave the text as . . . .... text. I actually prefer spreading them around, but it seems that wikipedia preference is going the other way. Another, "We'll see." Carptrash 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Seeing as you know a good deal of information about the American Civil War, could you please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Durham to see if it is a real battle or not? T REXspeak 19:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A tiny bit of help with the portal?

As I'm going through state cw articles for the Grande Parade, I'm having a tough time with the summary, since most of the introductions are pretty cursory. Could you do one of two things to assist me? 1) Either help contribute to the portal Grand Parade queue articles directly, or 2) help beef up the introductions of each article to about two paragraphs or so each (my preference, I think we should just make each intro better, and to a like style so I can drop it directly into the queue with little editing). Love your work, would like to showcase it. BusterD 00:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find yourself in the NYC area in a hotel room, let me know; I can show you some great spots for food. As to article introductions, I think it works best if you continue to focus on the articles (of course if you see anything at P:ACW, feel free to fix it) so that every reader gets your effort. What I see as necessary in each GPotS portal article is a basic introduction to the state's participation which well represents the entire article. This sounds like what any good article intro should contain. I see about two paragraphs, say, 200-300 words. For example:
"The state of Whatsis contributed to the ACW primarily in the areas of goobers, lemonheads, and malted milk balls. Over 50,000 lemonheads were contributed to the North/South cause, with Junctiontown, Whatsis being a primary source of goober/MMB production during the war.
"The battles of orange, grape, and guava were fought within the boundaries of Whatsis, though the guava campaign was primarily in the state of Whosits. The prison camp of sugar shack was especially well known for its poor treatment of dental health and the resulting 30,000 cavities treated was testimony to the ... North/South leader Tootie Frootie was born in ..."
And so forth. Kinda vanilla, but we'll write them much better than that. When we get a good one, we'll add the state to the queue. BusterD 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! BusterD 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming the Civil War

You have recently commented on Naming the American Civil War. I am stepping back from the article for a day or so to avoid an edit war. My request is that you consider stepping in to apply some peer pressure in the interest of civility, NPOV, assuming good faith, etc. It's up to you. -- Alarob 00:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting my Talk page. On Talk:Naming the American Civil War I've proposed a few points that we might build a consensus around. Would like some feedback from editors who work regularly on CW articles. Also some help in dousing the fire.
Please see the last secton on the talk page, if you can. -- Alarob 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Salyersville

Thanks for reminding me of that article; actually there was a previous version that was so incoherent and unsourced it got deleted, and since then my version was in hibernation. Maybe it should be named Battle of Paintsville, because that city features much more prominently in the contemporary Union reports I found. For now I substituted my version as you proposed, but it needs further attention by an expert. Yours, Huon 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Check your user page. Congratulations. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For hardwork and dedication to making Wikipedia a better place, I, Sharkface217, award you this Original Barnstar. I was especially impressed with your work relating to the American Civil War. Good job! Sharkface217 03:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very nice thing to say

Thanks for the kind words on my editor review page. I'm a big Scott Mingus fan too. BusterD 12:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for helping clean up my articles on civil war stuff. I am new to civil war articles and hope to get better at them. I am all for advice so if you have any reccomendations on what I can do to improve the quality of my articles, I am all ears! Thanks. P.S., I put a barnstar on your main page. You can do with it what you please. Chris Kreider 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever written a A article or an FA? I would like to do so and was wondering if you thought it would be posible to bring the article on the USS Hunchback up to that quality level? If so, do you have any particular reccomendations on areas I could improve or know somebody who could help point me in the right direction? Thanks, Chris Kreider 02:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! for the feedback. I think I will work on improving the quality of the article on the USS Hunchback. Chris Kreider 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Carlisle

I worked the info from the Harrisburg CW battles article into the Carlisle article and the Harrisburg history section. Thanks for your input. And congrats on your barnstars! (With all the cleanup you did to my edits, you certainly deserve them!) Greetings from York County (by way of Kansas). Wild Wolf 02:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bushnell

Thanks for the edit's on Cornellius Bushnell. I just added a table of contents. But I'm a novice so I appreciate your help.

[edit] Hello

Hey there. I've noticed many of your edits that have shown up on my watchlist for some time and just wanted to say "Hello" and Thanks! Always interesting and accurate. Keep 'em coming. --Jolomo 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio Civil War Edits

Hi Scott. Thanks for the heads up! I poked around in the categories, but I completely missed that. Thanks. CRKingston 07:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hampton Legion Expanded Article

Hi, Thank you very much for your contributions. I'm new to this, and I'm planning to contribute articles on Hampton Legion and related units. I appreciate any help or suggestions as I'm just learning how to do this. Thanks again


[edit] Re: Mahlon Manson

I didn't realize that alphabetizing categories was being discussed, however, since it is, yes, I hink it presents a neater and more organized appearance. Thanks for the comment.Windyjarhead 04:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks very much for the barnstar you gave me. You've done nice work yourself fixing my mistakes and providing links to regimental histories. (Sorry it took so long to thank you. I can be a bad procrastinator at times.) Wild Wolf 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jubal Early's Valley Campaign

Thanks for fixing the 1864 date that I mistakingly corrected to 1863...For some reason I assumed it was a typo, with the reasonable impression that Chambersburg was only burned once...during the Gettysburg Campaign. It was, however, burned twice...once again in 1864. Thanks again. Wrightchr 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On December 6, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Daniel M. Frost, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Well done Scott. GeeJo kindly nominated this article for you. Please feel free to self-nominate in future, as the vast majority are self-nommed. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help, Scott!

Someone has nominated about 20 library articles that I've added for the Libraries in Ohio project to be deleted! I am sick about this. I have spent hours working on these becuase it appears on our project list! Please jump into the discussion here and let them know that this is a Wiki-Ohio project and they should not delete it!!!! delete discussion Thanks!!!!CRKingston 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Scott. I feel better knowing that the project that initiated the libraries in Ohio gets to decide its fate. You are a dear.CRKingston 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm from Fairborn, graduated from Wright State, and I spent hours at the Fairborn branch of the Greene Co library. I even worked there for a while in college. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CRKingston (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Daniel M. Frost

I changed your recent edit to the Daniel M. Frost article to put the categories back into chronological order, which is the preferred style of the WP:ACW Civil War Task Force. Thanks for your understanding and compliance for future edits to Civil War biography articles. Regards!!! Scott Mingus 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no overall consensus on how categories on biographical articles should be sorted, but the balance of discussion favors my approach. I am just as entitled to edit the way I wish as you are to edit the way you wish, so I will not defer to your request. Sumahoy 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Battle of Little Bighorn

I'm pleased to hear you wish to regain this article's GA status - as you know, its main flaw (due to current GA criteria) is inline citations. LuciferMorgan 17:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/User_talk%7EScott_Mingus_d11e.html"