User talk:Donner60/Archive 22

Archive 22 starting with closed talk page threads after January 13, 2022 through December 2023, except for a few barnstars from 2023.

Hi
Can you please help me to make edits at the Calgary zoo because some one alaways removed it thanks! 2001:56A:7B14:CC00:DDF2:13F3:4A27:E79D (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I have been unavoidably offline for several weeks. I see all of your edits were on January 14. They caused some controversy with a few other editors who pointed out some problems with the edits. They gave reasons for your edits being not in accord with Wikipedia guidelines and cited links to guideline/policy pages to show you how to make proper references to support new information in an article. A short block was even imposed on your continued editing since the advice was not taken into account. Since the information provided by others on your talk page was an adequate explanation, which I would have agreed with, and your contributions page shows no further activity since January 14, this appears to be moot. Donner60 (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

List of highest scores in figure skating
Good afternoon,

Just wondering what was wrong with my edit on List of highest scores in figure skating for you to have reverted it so quickly, since Nathan Chen did indeed set a new world record today in the short programme at the Beijing Olympics. I'm grateful to receive any guidance, as I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia.

IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I struck my message on your talk page because my revert, and accompanying message, was meant for another nearly simultaneous edit that was erroneous. Your edit was an attempt to provide the correct information. Occasionally, if edits are nearly simultaneous, the Huggle program will revert the wrong edit which results in the wrong person receiving a message. I know that the information you were trying to add is correct so I am sorry for the mixup. If the correct information has been removed by mistake, you or I can now add it back. Donner60 (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bank of Venice
The idea that there was a Bank of Venice, or any institution in Venice that marked a paradigm shift in European banking, is an error of 19th century English historians that was debunked over a century ago. It continues to be repeated by popular writers, but not by historians. Wikipedia should align itself with the latter. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I will accept your explanation but, of course, that might not prevent someone else from questioning it. If you wish to restore your edit, I will not revert it. Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source
I'm a ngarabal native and these words were taught to me as a kid Jahkials2 (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see the following Wikipedia guidelines and policies:
 * No original research. "Main page: Verifiability. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source; what counts as a reliable source is described at Verifiability."


 * Verifiability. "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable."


 * Verifiability, not truth. Essay. "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia."


 * Verifiability. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Donner60 (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Normie Rowe reliable source
Keep the comment deleted, but refer to the following source FYI:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/viet_app

I've rechecked the source (about 2/3 the way down) and found I'm in error (mea culpa). While Rowe's birthday of 1 Feb was not included in the original ballot of 10 Mar 1967, it was included in the subsequent ballot of 8 Sep 1967 for those who were overseas at the time of the first ballot (which Rowe was). Rowe returned from overseas in Jul '67, probably something he's regretted since.

There have long been rumours the ballot was rigged for various reasons, keeping politician's and wealthy businessmen's sons out for example. Whether this is true or not may never be known, but the rumour that Rowe was a likely candidate for rigging it to get him in persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1743:1100:701C:48AF:9E75:B3D9 (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation and reference. I have struck through my original message on your talk page because of the complicated background that you cite. Donner60 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reassessments for start class per your user page
I'd be happy to take a look at any Civil War ones that you'd like me to. I saw the ping on the acw talk page, but I haven't had a chance to read it all through thoroughly yet. Hog Farm Talk 11:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have been busy with the talk page discussion on the end of the American Civil War on the Talk:American Civil War and just noticed your post here. As you can see there, I have added two long threads with information and citations entitled 1 Timeline of Major Events of the Conclusion of the American Civil War and Amnesties. 2. Historians on the End of the American Civil War. I have added these to the talk page of Conclusion of the American Civil War as well because I think they may be useful for any additions, corrections, clarifications or citations there. I plan to return to Talk:American Civil War with what I hope will be my last substantive comment and analysis of the end date for the Civil War later in the week. I will be quite busy for the next few days.
 * I very much appreciate your offer. I will take you up on it. I need to go over them carefully before I name any of them. While I am sure there are some out there that will be candidates for reassessment, I do want to be sure they don't need a little clean-up or a few additions - especially if any have been significantly modified in the interim. I should be able to do this over the next few weeks. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - Ping me whenever you come across one. I've expanded my personal library quite a bit over the last year, so if you're looking for a source or details for something I can see if anything I have is useful. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gerda. It is always nice to hear from you. I see from your talk page that you have been quite busy, especially with DYK. Your contributions to Wikipedia are wonderful. Donner60 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Vicksburg
Also pinging - any thoughts on trying to make a push for Vicksburg campaign to GA and maybe above? It'll be a big undertaking, and it's in poor shape right now - more space is given to the minor side affair at Snyder's Bluff than the two frontal attacks on Vicksburg in May, the fighting at Helena, Arkansas is under the heading "Louisiana operations" for some inexplicable reason, and there's poor/messy sourcing everywhere. Sourcing-wise, I've got Foote, Groom, Kennett's bio of Sherman, some of Catton's stuff, Carter's Final Fortress, Ballard, Miller, Shea & Winschel's Vicksburg is the Key, some miscellaneous stuff that'll cover the naval aspects, Bearss's Fields of Honor, Christ's Civil War Arkansas 1863 (for Helena), Grabau's monograph on Raymond, and Winters's The Civil War in Louisiana (for the Louisiana stuff). I could probably pull it to GA with those sources, although it might be a bit of a big undertaking for one person (I'm no Hal Jespersen).

It may be best to collaboratively draft sections in userspace somewhere and then add the sections into the article. I've done work with in other articles for a couple of the canals, Arkansas Post, Grand Gulf, Raymond, Jackson, and Big Black River Bridge, so that might be useful as starting points. I'd wait to start on this until I got around to writing Little Rock campaign, which I've been promising to do for some time, but I should be able to throw some decent focus on Vicksburg once I get through that.

Any thoughts? The background section scares me the most; I don't even know where to start on that besides Ft. Sumter or maybe Ft. Donelson I guess) Hog Farm Talk 22:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A good idea. The Western Theater tends not to get as much attention, as you know. I have been mostly offline and doing a little research offline due to a family member's surgery (hip replacement) and some other chores, which I expect will continue off and on for about another week or two. I want to bring the end of the Civil War date to a close and just made a brief post on the American Civil War Talk page about doing that soon. After that, although I have started a few new articles, I have nothing that I feel I really want to do next so I should be able to give this a careful look soon. It is too bad that the end of the war date required so much time and research about a single fact, though I did learn a few things. Perhaps you will wish to draw in a few others; or perhaps not at the outset. Donner60 (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I might add that I have the following books on the Vicksburg Campaign specifically as well as a few books about the naval campaigns on the rivers and some of the more general works or overviews such as Foote, Catton, McPherson and Eicher.


 * Arnold, James R. Grant Wins the War: Decision at Vicksburg. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997. ISBN 978-0-471-15727-4.
 * Ballard, Michael B. Grant at Vicksburg: The General and the Siege. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-8093-3240-3.
 * Ballard, Michael B. Vicksburg, The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0-8078-2893-9.
 * Beck, Brandon H. Holly Springs: Van Dorn, The CSS Arkansas and The Raid That Saved Vicksburg. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2011. ISBN 978-1-60949-049-2.
 * Bearss, Edwin C. with J. Parker Hills. Receding Tide: Vicksburg and Gettysburg, The Campaigns That Changed the Civil War. Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2010. ISBN 978-1-4262-0510-1.
 * Carter III, Samuel. The Final Fortress: The Campaign for Vicksburg 1862–1863. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980. ISBN 978-0-312-83926-0.
 * Frazier, Donald S. Blood on the Bayou: Vicksburg, Port Hudson and the Trans-Mississippi. Buffalo Gap, TX: State House Press, 2015. ISBN 978-1-933337-62-3.
 * Frazier, Donald S. Thunder Across the Swamp: The Fight for the Lower Mississippi, February 1863–May 1863. Buffalo Gap, TX: State House Press; [College Station, TX]: Distributed by Texas A&M University Press Consortium, 2011. ISBN 978-1-933337-44-9.
 * Fullenkamp, Leonard and Stephen Bowman and Jay Luvaas. Guide to the Vicksburg Campaign. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1998. ISBN 978-0-89587-088-9.
 * Miller, Donald L. Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2020. ISBN 978-1-4516-4139-4. First published in hardcover 2019.
 * Shea, William L. and Terrence J. Winschel. Vicksburg is the Key: The Struggle for the Mississippi River. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2003. ISBN 978-0-8032-9344-1.
 * Smith, Timothy B. Champion Hill: Decisive Battle for Vicksburg. El Dorado Hills, CA: Savas Beatie, 2004. ISBN 978-1-932714-00-5.
 * Solonick, Justin S. Engineering Victory: The Union Siege of Vicksburg. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0-8093-3391-2
 * Winschel, Terrence J. Triumph & Defeat: The Vicksburg Campaign. New York: Savas Beatie LLC, 2004. ISBN 978-1-932714-04-3. First published Campbell, CA, Savas Publishing Co., 1999.
 * Woodworth, Steven E., and Charles D. Grear. The Vicksburg Campaign, March 29–May 18, 1863. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-8093-3269-4. Donner60 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only other ACW editors who I can think of off the top of my head who have been active lately are and .  My inclination is to probably work on this section-by-section.  I'm afraid that it'll become disjointed if it isn't worked on from top to bottom.  I guess the first thing to start on is going to be trying to figure out what the general structure would look like, and if the work is going to be done on a subpage, in my userspace somewhere, or directly into the article as we go.  IMO the structure of the Louisiana sections needs to tie into the general flow more, and be less disjointed.  There's also a lot of weighting issues IMO: Snyder's Bluff, Goodrich's Landing, and the Duckport Canal probably warrant way less weight.  I'd be surprised if it was earlier than the middle of next week before I could really effectively start though.  A July 4, 2023 TFA would be amazing, but I don't know if that's a realistic time frame. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny, I just wrote up a regiment that was on the transports at Snyders Bluff. I think this can be realistic if we organize our efforts and break it down into smaller pieces, after all we are covering less articles here than MILHIST's successful Operation Majestic Titan on battleships. I also have access to Bearss' Vicksburg trilogy, while Tim Smith's recent trilogy of books (Early Struggles for Vicksburg, Union Assaults at Vicksburg, and Siege of Vicksburg) and Earl Hess' Storming Vicksburg (UNC, 2020) are on Project MUSE through The Wikipedia Library. I would suggest that we base are efforts off the most detailed scholarship like Bearss' and Smith's efforts, and other recent academic works rather than pop history like Groom and now-dated Catton. Hog Farm, I was just about to write up Little Rock campaign as well, and actually reading was reading the relevant chapter in Christ's book yesterday. Looking at my university library, I've also got Edwin Bearss' rare The Battle of Jackson May 14, 1863, The Siege of Jackson July 10-17, 1863 and Three Other Post-Vicksburg Actions Kges1901 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can get Woodworth's The Vicksburg Assaults, May 19-22, 1863 from a local university library, although the county library is mainly stuff I'd advise against using. Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry I haven't been very active the last few weeks. RL isn't a hobby, unfortunately. I do think we're still untangling the mess made when just one editor was writing most of the content. Not Hal's fault; there were very few models for FA work at the time, and the sources were more than sufficient for that time in Wikipedia's history. I'd hold Chattanooga is a bigger mess than Vicksburg but agree this is a very worthy target for improvement. I'm glad to see all these newer sources listed above. Majestic Titan was a success for two wikiprojects (let's not forget WP:SHIPS), and we won't have that much cross-project help here. BusterD (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of Operation Majestic Titan, I've put together a table at User:Hog Farm/Vicksburg campaign using Template:Campaignbox Vicksburg Campaign but excluding the sinking of Cairo. - Of 22 articles in the table, we currently have 1 FA and 6 GAs. One of the GAs (the siege article) was promoted in 2009 and needs a fair bit of work, two of the GAs (Big Black River Bridge and Grand Gulf) are some of my earliest work and need a somewhat hagiographic CSA unit history replaced with a better source, and the other three GAs (Arkansas Post, Milliken's Bend, and Jackson) are IMO okay for GA status but would need additional sourcing to get higher. The FA (Raymond) was promoted earlier this year and should be fine. Full disclosure: all of the GAs/FAs except the siege I'm the primary author for, so there may be issues I'm not seeing besides the source limitations of whenever I was writing them. Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty workable then. Thanks to the interlibrary loan system, I think we can access pretty much all of the recent books that we could use to expand the articles. I would strongly recommend using the interlibrary loan system because it allows one to obtain books for free and only a library card is required to use it. In my experience, it has taken books at most a couple weeks to arrive after I have requested them. Kges1901 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am adding User:TwoScars, who might have some interest, and may or may not have some time to consider this, to the pings. As Hog Farm notes, this will take a while so "nose to the grindstone" would not seem to be a requirement for contributing to this or getting it done quickly. I am glad Hog Farm added a user sandbox page for work; that seems the best approach and may avoid some duplicate work.
 * I have only read the background so far but "military situation" is not the only background topic; in fact, it is not the focus of much of the section. Without looking back at it, there is the importance of Vicksburg economically and strategically, the geography, politics, Union Army command conflicts and maneuvering, previous attempts to take Vicksburg, mainly by the Navy and perhaps a few other things. Several organized subheadings could help without necessarily needing to add too much verbiage. This would seem the right article to address such general matters so a little more detail would not seem to be overdoing it.
 * I don't minding using older sources if points have not been superseded but I think the new ones definitely need to be used. My experience is that limited sources sometimes can lead to unnecessary controversy. Unless anyone thinks it is a hindrance to progress, I may add a few citations that I think could help both the current campaign article and the draft. I sometimes am moved to look for quick citations if I think I can find them for facts asserted that need initial or bettering sourcing in an article.
 * FWIW, I hadn't added a few recent acquisitions to my book list. Also, I recently separated into topics for quicker recognition so I might miss a few more general works. I already had the two other recent Smith Books. I also saw that Hess's book was on sale for about half price on Amazon, so I ordered that. I also have the books that Hog Farm mentioned by Bearss, Christ and Winters.
 * Some years ago I had Project Muse and JSTOR access through Wikipedia but gave them both up since I did not seem to be using them enough to justify taking one of the limited number of spots. Recently, I have found a few articles of interest on JSTOR. It has open access to much out of copyright content and some public domain content. It also is continuing reading access to 100 articles per month, which was started during the pandemic. It means that the reader needs to take notes since subscription is still necessary to download articles and quotes can't be cut from the screen. Still, if one can determine how to get the advanced search function to actually narrow searches down to a limited number of really relevant articles, it is valuable. I have a little trouble limiting the search so I am willing to look only at articles that I think may be promising sources. The subscription cost is more than I want to pay. If Wikipedia's access is now more available, which I suppose I should have checked first, that would be great. Otherwise, all one needs to do is register with an e-mail address and a password to get reading online access to JSTOR.
 * Are we looking to improve all of the articles about the campaign, or only the campaign article, or only the campaign article first? Now that I think of it, some of the same edits or extended versions of them probably also would help improve the articles. I can't evaluate whether it would slow down reaching the first objective. I don't have experience on a wide-ranging project of that sort as an example.
 * I have some thoughts on the lack of activity on, and state of, American Civil War articles but I will leave those for another time. In general, I'll just note that it has been written on Wikipedia pages in the past that some contributors want to start articles and for various reasons may not be interested in expanding or improving them. Some may have been and perhaps still may be discouraged for various reasons. I have drifted among topics more than once for various reasons and I think others have. Real life can intrude to a greater or lesser degree for nearly everyone, of course. Some other reasons are hinted at in other posts above. Etc. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll probably "lurk" in the background and maybe help a little. I have the Eicher and McPherson books. Also Chernow's Grant, and Jeff Shaara's Civil War Battlefields (autographed copy). My wife and I actually visited Vicksburg National Military Park about 10 years ago. Right now I am working on getting Battle of Shiloh, Battle of Charleston (1862), and Indiana Glass Company to GA. Because Shiloh has so many views, I am working in a sandbox and will request that people informally review the sandbox before I make any changes. TwoScars (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For Project Muse and JSTOR, anyone who meets the criteria here can get access. These are easy to maintain if you are an active editor. Kges1901 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been approved for that with the wikipedia library. Need to get caught up on some stuff but should be able to start chipping away at things with this project soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: Helena is at GAN now; I'll try to pick off one of the minor Louisiana actions or Snyder's Bluff next. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Somehow, I managed to get copies of volumes II and III of Bearss's Vicksburg trilogy for under $20 bucks each so that'll be useful for me in tackling some of these battles. Hog Farm Talk 01:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  14:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

From Maurice Magnus talk page
I made footnote 2 less confusing, but it remains confusing. I changed it to read, "A diary excerpt is published in Gienapp, William E., ed. The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001, pp. 313-314 ISBN 978-0-393-97555-0. Taken from Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas, eds., The Diary of George Templeton Strong, vol. 2 (New York: The McMillan Company), pp. 600-601; vol. 3, p. 14." One source of confusion was periods instead of commas between an author's or editor's name and a book. I changed the periods to commas. If pp. 600-601 refers to vol. 2 of The Diary, then what does vol. 3, p. 14 refer to? Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Were you able to read this at my talk page? That is, did you receive an email alerting you to it? I paste it here in case you did not. Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ~ to your friends' talk pages.

Hope 23 is a more healthy year for you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I look forward to being more active here in 2023. Donner60 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png

Hello Donner60: From high in the Canadian Arctic I hope you enjoy the holiday season, Quviasukvik, the Winter or Summer solstice, Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah or even the Saturnalia, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Adapted from Season's Greetings CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Season's Greetings from Iggy the Swan

 * Thanks and I wish you the same! Donner60 (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings to you too! 😊
 Happy Holidays text 2.png

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Happy Holidays
 Happy Holidays text 2.png Happy Holidays, and I hope things are going better for you. We all appreciate the work you do for Military History at Wikipedia. All good here, although the temperature was 10 degrees in Maryland this morning! TwoScars (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Season's greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Donner60: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:15, 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. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Donner60: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Sarrail  (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message  Sarrail  (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




 Donner60 , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you and the same to you! Donner60 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Grierson's Raid
I just saw your message at my Vicksburg listing - I've got two other sources covering Grierson's Raid as well - Starr's work on the Union cavalry in the Western Theater, and then vol. 2 of Bearss's big trilogy (which I somehow managed to snag for less than $20, which is a miracle with those books). Battle of Newton's Station is related, although Starr and Bearss have fairly skimpy coverage of this.

Long story short, I can help flesh this out with some additional sources if you want to tag-team Grierson's Raid, although I've gotten pretty busy myself. I don't know that the coverage in Starr and Bearss really suggests that a separate article on Newton's Station is the best way of presentation, although maybe the new book has more to say on it. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Eicher, Civil War High Commands
Donner, would you be able to check to see what information Eicher has for William Y. Slack sometime? I'm finishing up a rewrite of the article. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Under Eicher's stated guidelines for who was a confirmed and commissioned general and who was a "might have been" as not having gone through the whole process, only a state militia general, or just a misidentified rank for an officer, Slack should not have been listed as a CSA general but both Eicher and Warner do list him as such. He had been a Missouri State Guard general and was confirmed and commissioned as a CSA brigadier general after his death. I followed the listing in Eicher and Warner rather than the guideline or commissioning procedure when finishing the List of American Civil War generals (Confederate) and splitting off the List of American Civil War generals (Acting Confederate). Anyway, here is the information from Eicher and from my comments about Slack on the Generals List, which were almost certainly taken entirely from Eicher and Warner.
 * From Eicher:
 * b. Mason County, Ky., 1 Aug. 1816. Moved to Mo. 1819. Lawyer. Capt. 2 Mo. Vols., 1846. MOV 1847.
 * Brig. Gen. C.S.A. (D5) Mo. State Guard, 4 July 1861-Aug. 1861; D4 Mo. State Guard, Aug. 1861-10 Aug. 1861; w. in the left hip, Wilson's Creek, Mo., 10 Aug. 1861, B2 - Mo. State Guard, 23 Jan. 1862-7 Mar. 1862; Brig. Gen. C.S.A. 12 Apr. 1862 (posthumous commission due to poor communications with Richmond); m.w., in the hip, Pea Ridge, Ark., 7 Mar. 1862, and d. Moore's Mill, Ark., 21 Mar. 1862; int Confederate Cemetery, Fayetteville, Ark.
 * From Wikipedia List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)
 * Slack, William Yarney
 * Colonel
 * Brigadier general
 * (posthumous)
 * rank, nom: April 12, 1862
 * conf: April 17, 1862
 * Mexican–American War.
 * Brigadier general of Missouri State Guard, July 4, 1861– March 21, 1862.
 * Severely wounded at Wilson's Creek.
 * Promoted to brigadier general, CSA, after his death on March 21, 1862, from wounds received at Pea Ridge, March 7, 1862, close to old wound.
 * Slack was taken to a house within a mile of the battlefield but after a few days was moved to Moore's Mill, seven miles away.
 * Condition rapidly deteriorated, leading to his death, March 21, 1862, aged 45.
 * Confederate Senate may not have known of Slack's death at time of confirmation.
 * Warner, Eicher list as a general. Donner60 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Coldwell
I will say that, having rewritten Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, Old Appomattox Court House, and Sweeney Prizery to stave off deletion, there is a fair chunk of unsupported sourcing, copyvio, OR, and minor factual errors in some of his writing. As well as a lot of instances of repetitive prose to get the word county up for DYK purposes. Just as a heads-up, any of that content re-added will need to be source-checked (I can try to help track sources down - Wilson's Creek has a really good research library, and it's close enough for a Saturday trip for me). Having looked through several of his articles, the article quality tends to vary quite a bit. Hog Farm Talk 13:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I certainly would not re-add anything that I cannot reference to a reliable source that I already have. I also will not presume that any reference that he cited even to an obviously reliable source is actually supported by that source without checking it. Coldwell may not have been careful, and many in some cases have even been deceptive, about referencing. And now that I look at it, the Conclusion of the American Civil War article, which I have already researched in depth, is the only one that seems to need some work to bring it back to a more complete state, if not GA. I will not look to re-add Coldwell material or sources directly but to improve the article through independently sourced and verified additions.


 * After posting an earlier version of this early this morning, I did some more examination of the Coldwell problem and found that you had corrected almost everything already. Also, unless I have missed something, the Coldwell effect on history articles overall does not seem to have been anywhere near as great as the comment that set me on my wayward course indicated. I should have done more preliminary work and not assume it was going to take too long to be thorough before setting off. I would have saved you and others at least a little time and aggravation. I revised an earlier note on BusterD's talk page before writing this one as well.


 * I suspect that I have enough sources that can be used to put worthwhile material into the Conclusion of the Civil War article and perhaps any others that might pop up with regard to Coldwell problems as well as working on many other ACW topics. I will certainly take you on on your to help on these or other articles if I come across something that needs more or better sourcing. Otherwise, I think you can look to me for references on some things while you continue on the many worthwhile articles and projects that you are working on. My library, especially considering downloads of old sources and some articles from online sources together constitutes a large collection, although the Gettysburg collection is by far the largest on any topic. You are much faster at getting things done so helping you with some sources is a good use of my time in getting info into the Wiki. Donner60 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

WP uses sentence-case headings
Donner, I had fixed the headings to the correct case, but you changed them back in this edit. Please fix. See MOS:HEADINGS. Respond here if you have questions. Dicklyon (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry. You are correct, of course. I didn't notice the intervening edits and obviously have not been paying enough attention to that. I may have had in the back of my mind that this article would not get much attention and I could correct things as I went along. I have been around long enough to know the MOS on many topics, including headings. I have been preparing wholesale changes offline and putting them into the article in batches, some of which repeat what I had written earlier. That is the reason the change happened, not because I was specifically trying to keep the previous version of the headings.


 * I usually don't write articles or revisions this way but thought I could make some headway with an article I had promised to upgrade quite some time ago. I have been delayed mostly by real life and trying to save GA assessments on a few articles. No excuse, just the reasons I might have been going about this in a less attentive way. Anyway, thanks for the heads up. I'll pay more attention in doing the remaining revisions and additions.


 * Great pictures on your user page, by the way. Donner60 (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Gettysburg
Hello Donner - I assume you have seen the comment on the Gettysburg talk page about cavalry in the InfoBox. I've found a count of ~13,000 cavalry for the Union (Coddington, p.249). Sears says Union cavalry was some 15,000 (June 27-28) after a reorg (p.130). Sears says Confederate cavalry was 12,400 (p.57) when they crossed the Potomac, although you and I know they lost at least 100 men at the Battle of Hanover before Stuart got to Gettysburg. A problem is that Sears also says Stuart's force was about 5,000 when it moved crossed the Potomac at Rowser's Ford on June 28 (p.106)—and I can't believe that Lee had over 7,000 cavalrymen with him at Gettysburg before Stuart arrived. Any thoughts? It probably would be good to address the odd cavalry comparison in the InfoBox. TwoScars (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * - Gonna be out of town a lot this week, but I can check my copy of Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg sometime soon if that would be helpful. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have started looking at this. Oddly enough, I have been looking at the cavalry at Gettysburg in connection with a summary of an offline presentation by another member at last month's meeting of a history/collectors organization which I need to finish this week.
 * So far, figures for the Union force have been between 11,000 and 13,900, the latter of which is about 1,500 higher than others so far. At least two other sources than Sears have around 12,400 men for the Union cavalry so that number may be about as accurate as it may get.
 * A couple of sources that I have seen put Stuart's force at Rowser's Ford at 6,000. In an agreement with Longstreet, he left Robertson's brigade and Jones's brigade with the main army. Longstreet later said or wrote that Stuart wanted to leave his least effective units and commanders behind. Apparently "Grumble" Jones did not get along with just about everybody, so there is that. Also, Jenkins brigade was off to Chambersburg well ahead of all the Confederate forces. Imboden's force of 2,000 joined up with the main army from West Virginia (didn't look up the state admission date) and was not part of Stuart's cavalry division. So, in fact, Lee may have had 5,000 to 7,000 cavalrymen but he may not have trusted them (or ignored them?) and had them do mostly work such as guarding wagon trains. Or part or all of those units also may not have been at hand either?
 * I'll try to firm everything up in the next day or two. If I don't, it could be several more days before I get all the numbers together. It sometimes takes skimming through quite a few pages to find any numbers at key dates. I'll leave a brief note on the article talk page. Donner60 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Atlanta
I'm capable of chipping in a little bit, even though work is quite hectic so my overall time is limited. Just let me know if you'd like me to look into anything. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Lewinsville
—Kusma (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Removals from Union Generals list
Hey, among your work I see some names you removed in your first edit where I'm not sure if you've removed them accidentally. Since it is one edit there are no individual explanations and I see substantial promotions shown in the list. Could you please take a second look at (or clarify about) Lawrence P. Graham, Richard Henry Jackson, Thomas John Lucas, John J. Peck, James Hughes Stokes and Davis Tillson? Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, I was writing to you at the same time you wrote to me. I do need to be watched on this project. One mistake is embarrassing. More than one shows that I need to be more systematic and careful (and is even more embarrassing). After I did the mass deletion, I started to examine the two lists side by side and to have the sources, Eicher, Warner and the Official Memorandum from 1906 at hand. I realized more than one deletion at a time was a bad idea and that I should re-check the ones I had already done. I thought I could go back later. Bad assumption, it's taking much longer than I thought it would to go through these. I have done no more mass deletions and am being more systematic and organized with the later ones (except one, unfortunately).
 * I apparently took out John J. Peck along with the removal of Frank Henry Peck. There is an entry on the brevet list for Frank Henry Peck. A version of the wrong person mistake with Ramsey, which you caught earlier. So I need to restore John J. Peck.
 * James Hughes Stokes was nominated as a brig. gen. USV January 13, 1866, confirmed February 13, 1866, to rank from July 20, 1865 with an appointment date of July 22, 1865. He was mustered out August 24, 1865. Richard Henry Jackson was nominated as brig. gen. USV January 13, 1866, confirmed February 23, 1866, appointed and to rank from May 19, 1865. He was mustered out of the volunteers February 1, 1866. I thought they did not qualify as Civil War generals since all the dates were postwar. I now find that Warner and Eicher include them in their lists, even though their stated standards for inclusion are stricter. Warner even notes in both biographical sketches that they were postwar appointments. These are apparently among one of the types of odd cases you had run across earlier. I suppose the names could be restored to the list with appropriate footnotes. Since Eicher and Warner include them, I will add them back.
 * Lawrence P. Graham and Davis Tillson were additional mistakes. I thought that it was odd that Graham was listed as a colonel and later as brigadier general as of an earlier date. I did not recognize that it was USA for one and USV for the other. I started an article on Tillson a few years ago and never finished it. My incorrect recollection was that he was a brevet general. There are no articles about these generals and a few others. I had thought that another user had completed the substantive grade Union general articles but he did not do so before leaving Wikipedia in 2015, with one later edit in 2021.
 * I will restore the incorrectly deleted entries after saving this reply. I think the underlying reason for these errors is that I was trying to rush through what I thought would be a very easy and short task. A bucket of trout for me. I am very grateful to you for promptly letting me know about these entries so I can correct them quickly and be reminded to be careful with the others that need to done. Donner60 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, nobody is perfect and your work is appreciated. I permanently have an eye on those lists and the technicalities can make them tricky to work on. Thanks for the second look. ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. All restored with Stokes and Jackson noted as postwar appointments included by Eicher and Warner. Donner60 (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Tools
Hello Donner - I used to use the FA Toolbox that has now been discontinued. The only tools I use for articles now are : "Find Duplicate Links" - installed over ten years ago, so I have no idea how to install it (but I use it); the Archive references tool; the copyvios tool; and the reFill tool to fix up citations. Do you know of any other useful tools for checking and fixing Wikipedia articles? TwoScars (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest you look at Tools if you have not done so already. I have not read through it carefully but that is the only place I can think of to look for additional tools. I have only ever used or been aware of the tools that you mention, not including the find duplicate links. Good to hear from you. Donner60 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. That page looks like it has a lot of things for me to explore. BTW, I have not abandoned Military History. I have been currently writing about glass factories. One museum mentioned me in their newsletter, so the pressure is on to get a few done (and I have). Also have a new addition to the family! TwoScars (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Congratulations. Donner60 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

October contest
Hi Donner, thanks for adding the contest results to the Bugle. Is there any reason simongraham wasn't awarded the Writer's Barnstar for second place? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No. I did not have it in mind. I will correct that. Donner60 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks
For the identifying the 'not around' status of absent friends (sic) It is very useful, thank you for that. JarrahTree 08:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I hoped it would be somewhat useful. Unless I miscalculate, I am allowing at least a year in line with a guideline I read somewhere. Most of the absent users are found on one article in particular, and a few others in the same general topic area. Three users have responded that they were still here, for which I have thanked them. I intend to limit my time on this since I should give other editing and projects priority. I appreciate the positive feedback. Donner60 (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Big Black River Bridge
Donner, I cannot find a high-quality source that provides Union strength at Big Black River Bridge - I've tried Miller's Vicksburg, Kiper's bio of McClernand, Smith's work on Champion Hill, Woodworth's Nothing but Victory, Ballard's Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign that Broke the Confederacy, the Internet Archive copy of Grabau's Ninety-Eight Days, vol. 2 of Bearss's big work, the wikipedia library copy of a 2013 work that is an anthology of chapters on the campaign by various authors (Smith wrote the Big Black River Bridge chapter), and Shea and Winschel's Vicksburg is the Key. I'm assuming that this must simply not be known, especially if I can't find it in Bearss, but I was wondering if you had a source handy that might shed some light on this; no worries if you don't. Hog Farm Talk 05:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * “The " Missouri division " (Bowen's), was renowned for hard fighting, both before and after this affair, but this was a case to try the nerves of the steadiest veterans, for every man felt instinctively that he was in a position where he ought never to have been placed. As they observed the movement toward the woods on their left flank, many of them slipped off one by one to the bridge in rear.”
 * “Meanwhile brisk firing was carried on opposite the centre for about half an hour, during which Carr's division was moving into the piece of woods on the right, and A. J. Smith's division was coming up and forming on Osterhaus' left. Just as Smith's division was coming into line Carr's men emerged from the woods with a loud cheer, and rushed forward upon the intrenchments. Vaughn's brigade in the centre saw that they were cut off from the bridge and immediately turned and ran at full speed. Bowen's division at first attempted to make a defence, but in a few minutes saw that it was hopeless, and it then joined in the attempt to reach the bridge. All the reports, Union and Confederate, speak of this as a precipitate flight, every man for himself. The 18 pieces of artillery were all abandoned, over 1,400 small arms were thrown away, and one-third of the command (1,751 men) were cut off and made prisoners. The rest reached the bridges in time, and immediately after crossing set fire to them. As they had been previously prepared for this purpose by scattering loose cotton and turpentine on them, they were quickly consumed. The losses on the Federal side in this engagement were 273 in killed and wounded, all but 30 of which were in Carr's division. The whole affair was over soon after 9 o'clock in the morning.”
 * Greene, Francis Vinton.  The Mississippi.  (Volume VIII of Campaigns of the Civil War). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1882. page 164
 * Among other things, Greene is identified as Lieut. Of Engineers, U.S. Army.
 * Available at https://archive.org/details/mississippi00gree
 * The American Battlefield Trust web site, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/big-black-river-bridge, shows troops engaged Union: 2,500; Confederate: 2,000; Casualties: Union 273, Confederate 1,751 captured. One could surmise these casualty figures came from Greene because the Union casualties given by the National Park Service are 279. Ballard also uses the numbers of Union casualties as 39 killed, 237 wounded, 3 missing, totaling 279.
 * One would think that the Confederates had at least a few killed or wounded but evidently there is no report showing what the numbers were, as noted by the National Park Service.
 * I found no source for Union strength other than the number given by ABT. I can only surmise that this was the estimated strength of the units that were engaged.
 * The National Park Service web site shows “Confederate losses at the Big Black River Bridge were not accurately reported, but 1,751 men, 18 cannon, and 5 battleflags were captured by the Federals. Union casualties totaled only 279 men, of whom 39 were killed, 237 wounded, and 3 missing. Grant's forces bridged the river at three locations and, flushed with victory, pushed hard toward Vicksburg on May 18.” (Note: 279 rather than 273 as shown by Greene and ABT.) https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/bigblack.htm Donner60 (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See also http://battleofchampionhill.org/history/big-black.htm which includes a quote from a Union colonel's diary. Note that some Confederate soldiers also drowned trying to escape by swimming across the river according to several reports. These also would not have been included in the 1,751 captured. The Confederates were routed so quickly that perhaps the killed and wounded number was small, but it is difficult to conclude that it must have been zero. Donner60 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking! Bearss has about 20 Confederates killed or wounded between Green's brigade, a Mississippi artillery unit, and a few casualties known from stray documentation from one of Vaughn's regiments and Cockrell's brigade. No casualty reports exist for Cockrell and most of one of Vaughn's regiments and the Mississippi infantry unit, and killed-wounded-captured breakdown is not known for the rest of Vaughn. The strengths on the ABT website can't be right or are maybe only Vaughn against Lawler + 2 Indiana regiments that charged with him; the Confederates didn't suffer over 80% casualties and the consensus of the print sources I looked at has CSA strength around 5,000 with the Union apparently greater. Hog Farm Talk 01:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct about the Union strength on the ABT web site being limited to the units that made the charge. The number of men that McClernand had on hand or close by would have well exceeded that number. I think the CSA strength of about 5,000 includes units on both sides of the river whereas the lower number may seems to include units only on the near side of the river. Even Greene states that "one-third of the command (1,751 men) were cut off and made prisoners." That's math even I can do that results in the Confederates having about 5,000 men in round numbers. Too bad that in this case sources are not more explicit about the units they are including in their counts of strength. Donner60 (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sodacan
You have marked him as missing from Wikipedia for more than a year, but just two days ago he thanked me for some messages I left on his talk page. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will remove the template if it is still on the page. A thanks is not recorded in the user's editing history. So if that is the only action a user has taken recently (within the last year or more on a template that I have placed - the date on the template will be at least a year earlier), it won't show up when the history is viewed. Someone who views that history will not know about the other activity of the user in sending a thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lady macbeth did not leave wikipedia.. I donate monthly to it and check in regularly though time has been limited. if you have specific things you would like done i'll be happy to do them, otherwise, just message Ladymacbeth9 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. These templates can be placed when someone does not have an edit in their editing history for a long period of time. Other involvement, including donations and send a "thanks" (but not posting it as an edit) will not be picked up in the editing history. A few instances of this anomaly unfortunately occur. Oddly enough, removing the template, as well as your post here, adds current edits to your editing history. No template should be placed on any user's talk page with an edit within the past 12 months. The guideline is a bit flexible, however. Again thank you for your generous offer. Donner60 (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Leveraging your library to create a repository of citations
Hi, Donner60. I recently discovered your American Civil War library (and three related Civil War libraries, and seven unrelated ones; did I miss any?) and I was impressed. I'm working on a project to extend the concept of shared references in a given article, to sharing references across multiple articles; see Reflib for an explanation. Your library could help in the effort to make citations more widely shareable. I'd like to discuss further with you, if you're willing. I envision a new article domain at Reflib, or more likely several of them, about subtopics of the American Civil War, that might be based on your list of works. If you're amenable, I'd have follow up questions for you on how to move forward with this. Mathglot (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I have a complete list of American Civil War books and the other lists, including the one you looked at which has a general title That is not a complete list. It started as such but got rather long. It and the separate lists divide the books into categories for easier research. There is some repetition; I have put at least a few citations in more than one list. The further unrelated lists are not American Civil War books. One of them is still quite incomplete as is stated at the outset.
 * Except for a few example citations that I have in the topical lists, my lists are not in the format of CS1 or CS2. They are straight Chicago Manual of Style. That is permissible but is not among the recommended "Wikipedia" styles CS1 and CS2. Nonetheless, several contributors to American Civil War articles have used that Chicago Manual of Style citation form. One longtime major contributor to American Civil War articles who was already prolific when I joined Wikipedia (and is now almost completely inactive) used it and recommended it. That only means that the recommended Wikipedia styles may not be used in existing American Civil War articles quite as frequently as they are used in articles on other topics.
 * If an article that I am editing uses a different style, when I cite a new reference, I try to conform to the existing style. I assume that the reflib would need to conform to one of the CS citation styles from the outset to satisfy most users who would want to use those styles. I do recognize some advantages in that, including for repetitive citations in the same article. Conforming my list to those styles would mean a substantial amount of conversion work and a commitment of a significant amount of time.
 * I have no problem with anyone copying the references in my lists for a new reflib. I assume this will not require a constant stream of visitors to my own pages in order to use the references. They are certainly open to anyone who wants to use them as references. But I have dealt with enough vandalism in different contexts over the years to know that is a possibility, even if rather unlikely. So I would not want my pages to be an open Wikipedia library. I don't keep them a secret; I have told others who work in the area to use them if they find them helpful. These are users who I am confident won't mess with them, of course.
 * While I otherwise don't mind use of the material, I will not be able to spend the time doing the many conversions to the preferred styles or for any other work requiring much time in the foreseeable future. You may know that I have been a coordinator for the Wikiproject Military History since October. This requires time and attention to various tasks for the project, almost daily if one is to do it right. In addition, I have a lengthy to do list which hasn't budged since I became a coordinator. I also have some projects in real life, including a presentation on a military history subject next month, with at least a few others possible during the year. So much as I see the merit in your proposal, I can commit the resource to be copied, but not much in the way of time. Best of luck with it, it sounds like it could be valuable to good faith users who become aware of it. Donner60 (talk) 06:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sure you will see the later message from me about this on your talk page if you have not already. It adds more information and perhaps puts a different perspective on the proposed project. It refers to existing Wikipedia page bibliographies on the American Civil War that are longer and all seem to be in straight Chicago Manual of Style format. It does not repeat much from the above message but does refer back to it a few times. Donner60 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thanks for the detailed reply; I'm still digesting it. As far as conversion, I wouldn't expect you to change anything on your page; it's more a question of asking permission to import your list (or some subset of it) into a list at reflib. Normally, I would credit the list owner in the edit summary of the initial import, but if you are concerned about additional visitors to your library as a result (which seems unlikely) I could avoid any link or mention of your page, if you prefer, although I like to give credit where it is due if there's no objection. There would be nothing you would have to do, and nothing to convert. There are a couple of relatively small things that would be helpful if you have time, is whether you could advise me of any sources in the list that you believe are not reliable or otherwise unsuitable for being cited in articles for one reason or another.
 * About citation 'style' as we use that term at Wikipedia: when we talk about matching the citation style of a given article, we generally do *not* mean MLA vs. Chicago, APA, and so on; we mean whether we use one of the three Wikipedia citation styles:
 * inline harv citations (Johnson (2005) p. 23)
 * inline full citations (&lt;ref> tags with full citation in-line between the ref tags, or
 * short citations inline which links to the full citations using CS1 templates listed all together in the "Works cited" or "Bibliography" section at the bottom of the article.
 * Reflib is primarily concerned with the last of these, and once the full citation is in a CS1 template, there is no MLA or Chicago or APA anymore; the 'style' choice is one of the Wikipedia big three.
 * One other thing about conversion: a separate project on my docket is to see about the possibility of parsing plain-text templates (MLA, Chicago, etc.) as used in journals and converting them to standard Wikipedia CS1 templates. That project is on hold, but I made a lot of progress quickly starting with MLA before pausing it; it's useful to know that yours are in Chicago style; that was #2 on my list after parsing the MLA style, and Chicago shouldn't be any more difficult. But like I say, that's a different project.
 * As far as Reflib, importing your citations (less any you advise as unsuitable) would be a good start. Since the list is long, I may wait to import it until I have a reasonable Chicago parser, rather than do it by hand. Also, the 'American Civil War' is a big topic; too big for one Refib, perhaps? I'm not worried about length, here; that is not the issue. The issue is, that an article domain is defined by a set of articles on a topic that are likely to *share* citations amongst themselves. That would be another useful thing you might help with that is, to let me know which sources you think are likely to be cited across different articles; a source like the 'Roster for the 3rd Kentucky Rifles of winter 1863' (I made that up; sorry if it's nonsensical) is likely to be useful to only one article, and therefore not a good candidate for inclusion in Reflib, which is all about *sharing* citations. Knowing which ones are 'shareable' in that sense, would be a big help.
 * I'll have a look tomorrow at the messages on my Talk page and respond to those as well. And thanks again for this! Mathglot (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer any use of my list to be anonymous. While I agree that it is unlikely that anyone would mess with my list, it apparently happened at least once to Hlj and my experience with having my pages vandalized 894 times over the years when I patrolled recent changes and reverted vandalism give me pause. My American Civil War Library page starts with frequently used references, continues with mostly battles and campaigns separated by the States or areas where they occurred and ends with books on guerrilla warfare. The latter are not separated by States or regions although most of the guerrillas operated in one or two States. A few of the subsections in my other lists are likely of some general use, even if the topic name seems specific. The Wikipedia articles that I mentioned on your talk page have many categories that may be useful. I will try to compare them and form some opinion about them, probably later in the week. I assume you are likely to evaluate the Wikipedia bibliographies and also form your own conclusion about whether they are suitable for the project. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Donner60. Understood; I will keep your name and links to your library out of it. Tbh, I'm not knowledgeable about the topic itself, so I don't trust my own judgement too much for source evaluation (other than general principles for any topic I'm unfamiliar with; no SPS, reputable publisher, etc.). I could try to check incoming citations or impact, but that could get time-consuming, especially as this is but one of many topics I hope to add to reflib. However, lucky for me, I've long been an occasional wiki-correspondent of user:rjensen at Wikipedia, who is Richard J. Jensen, American historian and creator of H-Net, and has been helpful to me on various Wikmipedia articles, and I believe he can help with evaluation far better than I could. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sure Professor Jensen can be of great help. I did assume you had some familiarity with the topic. I will give some consideration to the topics and the evaluation. It may take a little time. I am confident that my books are good ones, with perhaps an exception here and there. I went to some trouble to evaluate them before I bought them. There is also a reference book on about 1,000 of the most valuable publications written by historian David J. Eicher in 1997. It is divided into topics and has short reviews. I will copy the section headings for you. That may end up being a better contribution than I could make with my own judgment - along with the Wikipedia bibliography topics. Of course, the books in those bibliographies were added by many users and one cannot be sure how they were evaluated. Another such book of evaluations and short reviews by another author is due to be published early next year. I usually wait until books start showing up as used but I might well buy that one soon after it appears. Donner60 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess there's one general question I could ask you now, which is what your feeling is about histories that are not very recent; do we have to knock off some 'value' because later historians would have the benefit of additional insight, additional professionalism, perhaps additional discovered primary sources, and post-1995, the internet?
 * I'm aware of historiographical trends in other areas—for example, anything written about Vichy France pre-1975 or so predates the Paxtonian revolution, and except for perhaps niche items of fact, earlier works are almost useless in a general sense. Otoh, in looking at Ancient seafaring citations, I've learned that there are some outstanding works going back a century or more that are still referred to, even if specific portions may be outmoded in parts by more recent research, or just general opinion of historians given the broader scope they have since then. (Right now I'm looking at a copy of A History of Roman Sea-power Before the Second Punic War, J. H. Thiel (1954) out of the library, but it's hard for me to know if this is still considered a valuable resource without outside advice.)
 * I noticed other libraries of yours including your ancient/medieval library, so maybe you'd be a good person to ask, only without the book I imagine it'd be tough, as Google offers no preview of this one. But in the general case, is there any advice that could be given about books about the Civil War, say, written in the middle of the 20th century? Have they lost any luster in the light of later scholarship in favor of newer histories, or are they still worth including as valuable resources? I'm guessing that in the end it's a case-by-case sort of thing, but I was wondering if there were any rules of thumb that might shortcut the evaluation. Mathglot (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no books on Roman sea power. I have not thought about acquiring any to add to the general histories that I have. I did not think I would edit in that area and, as I suppose is obvious, I have more books than I can possibly read. I bought many of them to be used for research and perhaps quickly skimmed. I would guess that there are few books on Roman sea power before the Second Punic War. If I recall correctly, the First Punic War was the event that showed the Romans that they would need to add a powerful navy to their land armies. That makes me wonder how much could be written about Roman sea power in the earlier period and whether there would be many books that could add much history or archaeology later.
 * The short answer on the value of earlier Civil War books is that it is case by case. There are some excellent books, still often cited, by soldiers and historians from the Civil War period itself. The two books by Union general Humphreys about Virginia campaigns are outstanding examples. These are often cited, and as I see it, often copied sometimes without complete attribution. Of course, they are out of copyright.
 * I think that the World Wars greatly slowed down the writing of books on the Civil War and Civil War biographies, with some notable exceptions. That is a guess based on the number of books that I have or have seen quoted from that time period. Some outstanding books were written in connection with the Civil War Centennial in the early 1960s. This trend accelerated and continued up to relatively recent times. It seems to me that the number of such useful books is tailing off in favor of books on narrow topics. If I have some further or more specific thoughts later, I will mention them.
 * Despite the many excellent modern books on the Civil War, there are recent books that are not very good or do not add anything of significance or are niche books that deal with narrow topics. Biographies can be useful beyond an article about a person because they may describe the person's actions in detail in various battles or situations.
 * I looked at the Eicher book, which is a reference in the Bibliography of the American Civil War and other main Civil War bibliography articles. The number of topics is large both in the book and in the bibliographies. It looks like all of the Eicher topics are covered, and more, in the Wikipedia bibliographies. So I would not accomplish anything useful by typing out Eicher's extensive table of contents.
 * The Wikipedia bibliographies need some recent books to be added. They are quite lacking in ISBNs, which I can add as I have time.
 * If I have further thoughts later in the week, or later on, I will add them. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you have page patrol issues I can help. I build and edit wikis of my own using this software. let me know what you need and I'll work on it. Quite frankly, i've been a professional editor and writer for 20 years. each time I made an edit that corrected grammar or spelling, or said that a page wasn't really relevant or they were not celebrities etc. someone whined about it. It just seemed like a waste of time. Ladymacbeth9 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your offer. I see you have noted the number of times my pages, mostly my user page, have been vandalized. It does get aggravating at times. I became accustomed to it. Dealing with it can be a waste of time, however. That persistent vandalism was why my user page was semi-protected by a sympathetic administrator, without me even asking her. My other pages are not protected. I doubt that they need to be right now. Post-covid, I only revert vandalism or nonconstructive edits if I come across them. I have not been doing patrolling, only doing a little gnome-like work that I should probably defer. I have been a coordinator for the military history wikiproject since October and I also have a long to-do list of substantive editing and writing.
 * I have dealt with users who may be in good faith, but insist on the correctness of incorrect edits and push POVs and original research. That can be harder and take longer to deal with than the vandalism. It is easy to get fed up with that.
 * Have you considered whether you can help Mathglot with the reflib work? It looks like it would be quite a project. I am not sure whether this type of page has been easily established so for or whether Mathglot might need some help. I am of no help at all on software programming. I will take you up on your offer if I run into something that I need help on. And if you notice anything else that I work on where help or correction is needed, please let me know. I may not even realize that help is needed or can be had. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Italian Army
Thank you for your help. I added a few more articles to the Assessment requests page and also a list of articles, that are listed as B-class, but on their talk page listed as Start-class. As I wrote between 95% to 100% of the text of these articles, I would like other editors to have a look at this discrepancy. Thank you, best regards, noclador (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

2nd Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna"
Hello

Thank you for continuing to assess the articles; and I have a question on the Assessment page you wrote in regards to Talk:2nd Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna" "B class criteria met; assessment changed on talk page"; yet on the talk page of that article there are no changes. I don't feel like changing anything there, as I wrote the article, so could you please update it? Thank you, noclador (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks for catching the mistake. I changed the assessment to B, or saw it was already B, but forgot to change all the criteria to yes. I am sure you know that if all the criteria aren't checked yes, assessing or changing the class to B is not enough to make it show as such. I must have read it or published a change without checking the criteria or without proofreading the full assessment or the final result. I'll be watching out for a similar error on the later ones. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

YOU'RE SO CLOSE...
You are so close to 232k edits! You have 2 more edits, and then you will have 232k!! Btw merry late Christmas and happy new year!!! -- MDK  -  Fan  00:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And happy holidays and happy new year to you! Donner60 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy 232k edits and happy New Year's Eve!!!
Congratulations on passing 232k edits on Wikipedia!! Also happy New Year's Eve before 2024! -- MDK  -  Fan  20:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Donner60!


Happy New Year! Donner60, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks and happy new year to you! Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

2024


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday was a friend's birthday, with related music. - I'm on vacation - see places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)