User talk:Scott Mingus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Author of Human Interest Stories of the Gettysburg Campaign, now available from amazon.com, Borders, and Barnes & Noble.
  • Read the reviews HERE!
  • Coming in April: Human Interest Stories from Antietam.



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] John Lafayette Riker

Scott, you've added a lot of information about John Lafayette Riker. I'd like to know what your source material is for claims that he:
1. Practiced law before commanding the Anderson Zouaves, and;
2. His body was escorted back to New York by Chaplain Charles Harvey.

I ask this because as far as I am aware (and I would love to be proven wrong) there is no evidence that John Lafayette Riker actually practiced law. He did however, have a relation, John "Lawrence" Riker, who did practice as a lawyer and had an office on Nassau Street, New York. Is it possible that you have confused these two? Also the name of the Chaplain of the Anderson Zouaves was John Harvey (not Charles Harvey). I have always assumed that Harvey escorted the body of Riker back to New York but have never had any firm evidence to back this up. I would change the information in the article but wanted to check your sources first in case you were privy to some information to which I am not.

Also I am keen on communicating with individuals with an interest in or information on the Anderson Zouaves as uncovering the history of this regiment and Riker has been a pet project of mine for several years now. John Tierney 03:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)













[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)

[edit] wargames

We have been pushing the idea of using images of quality wargames to show battlefield deployments and the course of events. Our problem is that we lack maps and people able of creating battlefield maps. By chance I realized you are familiar with the topic, so I would very much appreciate your advice.

My idea was to use photos of wargames taken from a bird's eye view with colored arrows indicating troop movement. In case the symbols for the troops are figures they should be deployed, colored and equipped in a historically accurate fashion, furthermore it should be easily possible to determine their troop type and to which side they belong. This is likely suitable for premodern warfare.

Kirill Lokshin raised the issue that it may not look professional, so I'm greatly interested in using the same wargaming style which was in use among the contemporary militaries. This would make it more authentic and really professional in my opinion, especially for the early modern and modern warfare until the rise of computers. Wandalstouring 05:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you and some other wargamers possibly do this? Wandalstouring 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I only do Civil War miniature wargaming - no other periods. Hence, I would not be of any help to this effort as the major ACW articles are more than adequately illustrated with maps.Scott Mingus 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] people of the American Civil War by state

I believe you created the categories of 'xxxx state in the American Civil War'. Good. To help organize the articles in these catgeories, I am thinking about creating subcategories named 'People from xxxx state in the American Civil War' or some similar name for the people articles. Have you any thoughts on this name. pattern Hmains 05:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming a category problem

Hi Scott. Congrats on your book!! :-) I've been working on orphaned categories and I've run into a problem. I've just created a category and the category name contains a typo. I don't know how to fix this. Can you help me? The category is American University of Beirut, expect I misspelled Beirut. The letter I is in the wrong place. I've searched through the Wiki guides and I can't find instructions for how to do this. Thanks in advance for your help. CRKingston 09:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan's Raid

Looks like you've done some great work on the article Morgan's Raid. I just rated it for WikiProject Kentucky, and I think it's a Good or Featured article just waiting to happen. All it needs is some in-line citation. As it looks like you are the primary author, you could probably provide those better than anyone. Can I do anything to help you get it ready for a Good or Featured article nom? Acdixon 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Opequon?

Sir, The Body of Literature refers to this esoteric name by it's commonly known name of the Third Battle of Winchester. There are no published books called the "Battle of Opequon". Rather, there are published books on the First, Second and Third Battles of Winchester separately and together. Local signage, museums, tourist literature here in Winchester, VA where I am a resident make no mention of the "Battle of Opequon".

Since the Body of Literature and local community and citizens refer to this as the Third Battle of Winchester ... please consider changes the name of this master page and article to the same said title.

I have found many factual errors in the three wikipedia articles on these three battles, and it will take me some time to submit corrections, for at least the more problematic errors. Please ask all the self-apppointed gurus of these pages to consider the carefully researched and well-read inputs received on these battles from an on-scene expert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.185.55.77 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Third Battle of Winchester

In response to your message, I have listed at the task force site, and submitted a brief explanation of why, in Virginia, the PACS names of battles are used (e.g. the Battles of Manassas), and why NPS honors this. NPS has no involvment in Winchester, and if a national park were created, there would be no doubt that at that time, the correct names would be applied (e.g. the Third Battle of Winchester, and the First, Second and so on).

If there is not much debate herewith, please consider the renaming of the page for the Third Battle of Winchester.

As a side note, I noticed the Gettysburg Campaign list is missing MGen J.E.B. Stuart's battles in Fairfax and Maryland, which should be added to the campaign list, with blank pages to start their documentation. (I'm new at this wikipedia stuff, but just trying to lend a hand) Grayghost01 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Rhode Island Infantry

I see you're in the American Civil War task force for the Wikiproject on military history, so I thought I'd enlist your advice. I just created this article, and I was wondering how it looked, or if it was missing anything. I'm not a civil war buff really, so I'm kinda new to writing these articles. Thanks! Cornell Rockey 21:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New page: Winchester in the Civil War

Scott,

I pulled this into a new page, and will expand from there. I plan to leave the original material in the city/town page, or perhaps trim it a bit (CW is a big part of Winchester and its tourism).

I've added it to your cities in the CW category, but I don't know how to make your TOC winchester link point to this page, vice the paragraph of the town/city page. How does that work, or can you fix that?

I will need a few months to get this up to snuff and matured size.

Regards the Grayghost01 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Romney Expedition and etc.

Scott & Hal,

I'm sending this to both of you, as I don't know which of you administers what.

As I am filling in material for Civil War events in the Winchester area, I've noticed that the Romney Expedition is missing, and so I will start a stub article. I searched wiki and could not find anything on it.

It should be the opening battle of Jackson's Valley Campaign of 1862. In your campaign box, you start with 1st Kernstown, but the Romney Expedition is the real beginning, and should be added first in the sequence.

Also missing is Jackson's Railroad Operations against the B&O (The Great Train Robbery) in the spring of 1861 (at least I can't find any wiki article on it). That should be it's own sub-box in your "Early Operations 1861" Campaign scheme. Once again, with your permission, I can stub an article on that.

These stub articles, I will give a good solid paragraph to start it, and perhaps a public-domain image, if available.

Finally ... I noticed on the cities of the Civil War that Romney was listed as a Northern city.  ?? I suppose I see the technicality that WV became a state in the Union a few years into the war. However, you all must understand that those counties (the neck of WV) did NOT join the Union with WV in the war, and were part of Virginia. Later, after the war, these "neck" counties exercised an opportunity to transfer to Virginia.

Romney, Martinsburg and Charlestown were pro-Seccession towns, and generally were under the watch or control of Confederate forces anytime the Confederates were in town.

I suggest that you re-consider the placement of Romney on the list, and to put it either in the South's line ... or ... if you name your border group as Border/Disputed, it might actually more logically fit there, as would any town in WV.

For the Cause, the Grayghost01 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romney, and extent of Wiki ACW coverage

Scott & Hal, I think Scott's references demonstrate the sources which tie Romney to the Valley Campaign, and I will put these as references on the Romney Expedition page. You will notice that the RE page explains the reason why the Romney Expedition and the following Insurrection of Loring set up the whole chain of events that began the VC. If not for that episode, Jackson may have, instead, peformed a "BRAGG-KENTUCKY" type affair, with a larger force. Instead, Jackson was forced to abandon Winchester, and was put into the position of having to interact as he did with Banks.

What is the goal of Wikipedia? Is it to be an ever-growing and unabridged encyclopedia of the world? If so, in my own opinion, it is a great venue to summarize the entire ACW, by topics, by battles, by whatever threads are of interest. I see all the goofy biographies on living people, and also others who obviosly stick in their own self-articles to promote themselves. Surely history deserves a front seat to that. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the ACW in Wiki should cover, if possible, every noteworthy event in some summary form, and every skirmish. The level and taxonomy should determine relative coverage, then.

In that light, I propose that you consider a classification of "expeditionary operations" which is analgous but different from the "campaign operations". Expeditionary operations, by the book, have been around for a long time, and the USMC views the world heavily from this angle, and uses the Confederate actions as their textbook of sorts, along with the infamous "Small Wars Manual" they wrote, and still use. The Red-River, Romney and other such episodes are better viewed as expeditionary operations, and given the definition of expeditionary you will see why.

I also propose a lower-tier of "Skirmishes" and "Raids". This is a vital category deserving its own treatment. Often these are NOT tied in to the campaign they occur in the middle of, such as the Raid to assassinate President Davis in Richmond. Some, like the "raid" into Ohio does not fit the defintion of a raid (though called that from time to time) and is fittingly called an "expedition".

As a retired Marine, and former Instructor at the Marine Corps University, I want to point out that so many people write on the topic of the ACW, that they often mis-categorize events, or are the ones giving events "names" that were not originally used by the veterans of the war. E.g. our own current "Gettysburg Campaign" was certainly never called that at the time it occurred. In looking back, the taxonomy and naming convention becomes useful.

I see how the National Park Service was invoked, which seems that they simply had SOMETHING on the web which was convenient for some early wikipedians to pull in. Okay. But while I think that was a good start ... and much may not change from that ... the taxonomy of the Battles, Expeditions, Raids and Skirmishes of the ACW should be reflected from consideration of the Body of Literature as its main influence.

So to that end, I propose this taxonomy for consideration: Theaters Campaigns (& Campaign Battles) Expeditions (& Expedition Battles) Raids Skirmishes

Ponder this, and I will get back to you with definitions and terms to define these a bit. Grayghost01 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have intersected with you several times

on wikipedia, most recently at Randolph Rogers. I am a sculpture historian - mostly America (or should I say "United States" - one needs to be so careful around here) and this includes a lot of Civil War monuments. Anyway, I noticed your books and wondered 1) how much discussion is there about monuments in them and 2) is there any relationship between yours and Herbert l. Grimm and Paul L. Roy's , booklet Human Interest Stories of the Three Days' Battles at Gettysburg, Times and News Publishing Co., Gettysburg, PA, 1927? I am on a book buying hiatus (and a wikipedia editing one too, but I can't help myself) now, but like to at least keep track of useful titles. Carptrash 17:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contribution

Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your assistance on the new Lunsford L. Lomax article

How did you know it was there? What did you watch? ACW Task Force announcements? Trying to find new ways to find good new ACW stuff for the portal. Please check it out tonight before the changeover in an hour. I'm kinda proud how there's very little "war stuff", but lots of good material. BusterD 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, John Pegram (general), was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On October 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Pegram (general), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana Tigers

Updated DYK query On 27 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Louisiana Tigers, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

I had some questions about a couple of projects I had in mind:

1. Articles on Pennsylvania ACW regiments have differant endings (such as "Volunteer Infantry" and "Infantry"). I was wondering if it would be better if all ended in one or the other. This way, it would be easier when creating links to PA regiments since editors wouldn't have to try and remember which regiments have which ending.

2. I'm trying to get battles into their proper category in the Category:Battles of the American Civil War. I noticed there are categories for "Main Eastern Theater" and "Pacific Coast Theater" and was wondering what were the specific geographic bounderies for these categories. (For example, the Battle of Picacho Pass is included in the Pacific Coast Theater but can be included in the TransMississippi Theater.)

3. Related to the above, exactly what differentiates between a battle in Category:Battles of the Operations Against the Defenses of Charleston of the American Civil War against one in Category:Battles of the Operations in Charleston Harbor of the American Civil War?

4. With the regiments from the Confederate States, there are often two lists of units, one of units in general (e.g. Virginia Units in the Civil War) and one of Confederate regiments (Virginia Civil War Confederate Units). The one of units in general seem to include units in both armies, including the units in the Confederate list. Do you think both lists should be merged into a single list or should there be two lists for each state, one for each army? Wild Wolf 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional questions

Hey there. Hate to be a nuisance but I wanted to get your opinions about some more things:

1. With the Category:Battles of the American Civil War, most battles seem to be in a "Battles of X Campaign" categories. Should these campaign categories be added to the Battles category to make things simplier or should each battle be added seperately.

2. With the ACW regimental categories, some states which had units on both sides (such as Missouri and South Carolina) have only one category for all units. Do you think that the units in opposing armies should have seperate categories (e.g., Missouri Union regiments be in "Category:Missouri Union Army regiments" and Confederate regiments in "Category:Missouri Confederate Army regiments")?

Thanks for your help. Wild Wolf (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Charleston?

Scott, I came across Battle of Charleston (1861) and am not sure what to make of it. Is there some specific reference that details what happened? My O.R. search seemed to yield more about an earlier skirmish there. Red Harvest (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Scott, is there enough info around (such as a source) that this one can be expanded in any way? Or is this destined for deletion due to lack of notability? If it ties into a campaign or something then even if it doesn't rise to notability in its own right we could add a paragraph or two to the relevant campaign or action. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the operations in this sector of the state. Red Harvest (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. Red Harvest (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has replaced the October engagement with the August one and removed the deletion nomination. That will probably do as the October one apparently lacks notability. Red Harvest (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Charge1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charge1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Sorry to bother you about this again, but I had a couple more questions about the ACW battles categories: 1. Is there any overlap between the Lower Seaboards Theater (LST) category and the other categories (e.g.: a battle can be included in both categories) or can battles belong to one and only one?

2. I noticed in the LST battles category that there are subcategories covering various portions of the Theater (such as against major cities in 1862). I was wondering if it would be better to transfer these subcategories to the LST campaigns cat and list the articles individually in the battles cat or to leave this as is. (Or perhaps leave the subcats in the battles cat and add the individual battles.)

Thanks for you help and sorry if I'm starting to be a bother. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment

Scott Mingus, I have written an article which is up for its second Peer Review in hopes of nominating it to FA. The PR can be found here. Any comments you may have would be appreciated. Regards, Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Carnifex Ferry

Thanks for rewriting the story of the battle. Your writing is much clearer than the NPS writeup. As for copying from the NPS page, that would have been okay by me as long as it was in quotation marks and attributed to the NPS. Again, good job with the rewrite. WVhybrid (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Why did your remove a bunch of names I added from the ACW bio request list?

Was this inadvertent or intentional? I assume it was accidental. If you believe they are non-notable, etc. then I believe we should discuss them to determine if they are. Many of them are characters that I'm not particularly fond of, but do seem to trip notability guidelines as having nominal command at specific engagements, etc. Red Harvest (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It seems that it was indeed some sort of data corruption then. I was really scratching my head as the edit didn't seem to be characteristic of yours. Red Harvest (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open!

An FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open and can be found here if you wish to comment! Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hello from Carrollton, OH

Just wanted to say hey from the home of the Fighting McCooks (tribe of Dan), Carrollotn, OH. Thanks for all your work on the topic. Something I should have done years ago, but never did. Got as far as the carrollcountyohio.com website, and the local interest was so lame, just stopped working at it. Would like to see audio presentations on the topic.

Oh, and if you would like to own a piece of McCook history, the Dr. George house in Lisbon is up for sale!

Thanks again, Ed--Ej0c (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)