User talk:GELongstreet/Archive 1

New kid on block with good intent
You look like you know how this works. Can you look at the Thomas Drayton talk page and see what I am trying to correct? I got labeled a level 3 spammer in my first minor revision attempt. I probably should have used the footnote but I am not sure. I read the blockers note to me but still am not sure what I did. I have been studying Wikipedia methods a lot but I am not being given much of a learning curve. Can you see and/or correct what I am trying to correct on the Thomas Drayton page? I also thought the map of the battle I mentioned on the Thomas Drayton talk page was excellent but I am unsure about the use of it etc. I might watch how you do things for awhile to see how things work. I found you under the American Civil War Task Force page. Thanks. JLQ23 (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)JLQ23
 * Answered on your talk page ...GELongstreet (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You do good work!  I'll get there.--User:JLQ23  —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Ordnance sergeant
And there are ordnance corporals and ordnance privates? There is nothing simple.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There were enlisted men in the Ordnance Department other than ordnance sergeants - privates, artificers, corporals and sergeants; possibly of all grades; and officers. However they was no rank of ordnance corporal or something as it was just their service branch. Ordnance sergeant was created for their specific positions and duties while all others served in different capacities in the department. Means seargeant of ordnance is not the same as an ordnance sergeant, so I changed your picture link to the correct picture. Thanks ... GELongstreet (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

List of U.S. Army, Navy, and volunteer units in the Mexican–American War Comment
I am in the process of adding to your list. The U.S. Revenue Marine had several of their cutters assigned to the Army for use during river campaigns. Several of the cutters were assigned to the Navy by the Army. I will have this section cleaned up in a few days. I hope this doesn't interfere with your plans for the List Article. Additionally, I believe that there were several Navy ships used in the war that are not listed. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not my list, I´m just the last one doing a bit of work there. If the list is anybodys it is from . There definitely were Navy ships, they´re just not put on this list for now. Not my area of studies I have to admit. As far as I am concerned carry on as you please. ... GELongstreet (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

General Johnson
Hi GELongstreet,

I noticed that you did a copy-paste move of the General Johnson content to General Norman Johnson and changed General Johnson to a disambiguation page. If you would like to move the content from General Johnson to General Norman Johnson, use the Wikipedia Move tool. If you can't move the page, please open a request at Requested moves to move the page. From a personal standpoint, I feel the content should stay at General Johnson, but either way, correct procedures need to be followed. Natg 19 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered you on your talk page ... GELongstreet (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful with redirected talk pages. The page you were editing was not the page you wanted to edit. I have moved your project banners to the correct talk page and restored the talk page you blanked, which was associated with the biography article. You will need to fix all the incoming redirects to the disambiguation page, to point to the current article location. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

REL Dates of Rank
The citation for the addition of CSA Brigadier General for Robert E. Lee doesn't line up. Page 807 just lists the Generals (of which Lee is one). I don't have the full book, just the snippets available on Google Books, so I can tell if Lee is listed under CSA Brigadier Generals (which appear to somewhere between pages 809-811). If you have the full book can you please update the citation? Wiki publius (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed it; was page 810 though you´ve also find said dates on pages 344 and 790. A most excellent reference book ... GELongstreet (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! Wiki publius (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your page on the 154th TN Senior Inf Reg
Thanks for putting all that information in the page, you obviously know way more on the regiment than I do! Sorry if I made it look ugly, I'm a new user, but I love the information and layout that was added. Thanks, - S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk • contribs) 13:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You´re welcome. No need to apology, please keep on working here on wikipedia and the regiment's article as there's always stuff to do. ... GELongstreet (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Double listing in dab page
I thought I had raised this issue before, either with you or in a more general discussion, but I can't for the life of me find it. Apologies if this is duplication.

By this edit you removed one of the listings of John Brown Gordon from the John Gordon dab page. Gordon was both a Civil War general and a politician (Governor and U.S. Senator). I thought putting him in both categories served the readers the best. Someone who encounters a reference to Gordon elsewhere, and wants to know more about him, might come to the dab page and not want to wade through scores of listings to find the right one. Categorizing the listings is a big help. The problem is that some people might look under "Politicians" and others under "Military", depending on the context in which they saw his name. If he's in only one of the categories, some readers won't readily find him and will give up.

The question I thought I'd raised was why we should be averse to a "duplicative" listing when there's a good reason for it.

If you think we should not list Gen./Gov./Sen. Gordon twice, we should start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation, because this issue could affect other listings. JamesMLane t c 18:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the trouble to start that. It's become quite the edifying discussion.  JamesMLane t c 18:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Caporetto statistics
I noticed you made an edit a few months back increasing the number of Italians involved in the Battle of Caporetto to 874,000, with your edit summary noting that the original lower number only included one of the two Italian armies involved and that casualty numbers were higher than the number involved. Do you have a source for 874,000? Since your edit, the "350,000 missing" have been correctly identified as having withdrawn rather than lost and so removed from the casualty totals, and I'm tempted to restore the original 400,000 number cited in the relevant source. Alcherin (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article itself says that there were 265k prisoners and 350k stragglers; which already far outnumber the 400k given as strength in the infobox and therefore make clear that something is wrong. Which is the original reason why I searched for other numbers of the total forces (where it isn´t relevant if they were lost of withdrawn) and took the numbers from the Italian casualties section in the |respective German wikipedia article which gives the strength for the 2nd Army as ca. 667k and for the 1st as 207k; that section itself taking the numbers from the contemporary Austrian analysis reports. ....GELongstreet (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hans Cramer
How is Hans Cramer's prior service relevant? What he is known for is his service in the WWII. The rest is just clutter. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mostly known, yes, that`s why it could be enough information for the lead sentence but not for the infobox. It is factually wrong to write otherwise. He served from 1911 and during WW1. There was no Wehrmacht back then. I´ve seen you did so on many articles ... I´m going to restore the correct versions and if you can´t see my point I suppose you take this to the MILHIST project talk ... GELongstreet (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Nathan Bedford Forrest
I don't know how exactly to send messages but I think I'm this right. Just wanted to let you know I uploaded the same photo, just with a higher resolution. - S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154thTN Pvt. Seth Adam (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Received and noted. ... GELongstreet (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page and About K.e.coffman
I have oversighted the material in this section, which reveals off wiki contributions to other web sites. GEL. do not repeat this or you will be blocked.  DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was not the original poster of said material, so despite not agreeing with your decision I have no problem to say fine by me. ... GELongstreet (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying. Disagree, comment made. ... GELongstreet (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens in ranks during the American Civil War
Hey,

American Civil War era ranks
Would you please stop removing hyphens I correctly put in American Civil War era ranks such as Lieutenant-Colonel, Major-General, etc. before consulting the following external links to contemporary Confederate States army regulations which clearly indicate hyphens as official standard for Confederate army ranks:


 * Page 1 (Article II - Rank and Command) of the 1861 Regulations for the Army of the Confederate States


 * Page 1 (Article II - Rank and Command) of the 1863 Regulations for the Army of the Confederate States

You may also want to consider consulting the voluminous correspondence within the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion as yet another additional source of American Civil War era rank usage.

"Thank You" for your service
One additional note...

I would like to thank you for your service in the Luftwaffe. I am a U.S. Army officer stationed in Europe, and am greatly impressed by the Bundeswehr's contributions to peace and stability within NATO.

Nothing else
Thanks. ...Lieutcoluseng (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * For the records, my digital copy of the 1863 regulations shows those ranks on page 1 without hyphens. But apparently the rest of the copy favours the use of hyphens, too, though it is not completely consistent with that just as your version. And in the end the same is true for the ORs. But I see your point and will no further interdict your hyphening. No hard feelings and thanks for contributing about the ACW ...GELongstreet (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, sir!
Thank you very much for your great illustrated infobox! Funny enough it's by birthday so it was a fantastic present!Foofbun (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case Happy Birthday! ...GELongstreet (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

10th Virginia Cavalry
Hey! I'm fairly new to the Wiki community and am wondering if you could give me some guidance on what the 10th Virginia Calvary page needs. Thanks you for the assistance.Chefmikesf (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It has rosters of two companies - none of those should be there (of course a link to regimental rosters would be nice). Instead it could have more about the overall regimental organisation. The article gives the name both as another regiment and as battalion without going into any detail why; which is needed. The details about a single company commander are out of place as well. If there is any further published material available it could be used for some footnotes and references; or for a further reading section. Just some ideas. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1797)
Dear GELongstreet, I am working on an expanded and fully referenced version of the above article and I have some questions about an edit you did to it back in 2013. In the edit you reformatted the order of battle into divisions (which does not seem to correlate to the actual stations the Spanish ships took during the battle), and you added a number of casualty figures for individual Spanish ships. These figures are unsourced, can you tell me from where you obtained them? Any help much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple: I ported/translated it from the respective section from Batalla del Cabo de San Vicente (1797), which is the equivalent article about the battle on the Spanish-speaking wikipedia. Interestingly, in turn I had to port/translate the English OoB from here to the Spanish wiki as it didn´t have any British OoB at all. As for the, likewise ported, divisions instead of no sign or grouping at all please keep in mind that divisions are a form of organisation that could (could) be completely independent of the battle, are not equal to stations and don´t neccessarily need to correlate with any of the actual stations or positions during the battle. I´m not much into the topic so I can´t tell you if those division were permanent or temporary. As far as the sources are concerned you´ll find them in the article but I myself have no full access to them. Anyway good luck with your work ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - J. Warren Keifer
Thanks for catching my error on Keifer. I am sure it was obvious to you that I was concentrating solely on the Civil War without paying enough attention to the fact that he had later service at a higher grade. I mainly have been updating links to the Civil War generals lists and overlooked the later service, although I am aware that some officers had later service. I am reasonably sure I have taken that into account before but will definitely be more alert to it with this reminder. Donner60 (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You´re welcome. Thought so, indeed, especially as I´m on the same mission as we have hundreds of cases simply written as generals without understanding and noting the brevet situation. But we´re making progress ... just a few more infoboxes, lead sections, categories, lists and wikifications and many articles will turn out just fine without being wrong. So long, and happy new year ...GELongstreet (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution
I just removed a "strange" sentence on List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution. The remainder of Bayonet still seems like a fragment.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For whatever reason the article regularly attracts vandals. ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

United States Volunteers; Justus McKinstry article
Long-time user Hal Jespersen was greatly opposed to using "United States Volunteers" for Civil War articles, contending that it was an anachronism. I think that is not the case based on some contemporary publications that I have seen and certainly is consistent with more modern references. I acquiesced to Hal's insistence and have avoid using United States Volunteers since my discussions with Hal when I was new user. I agree with your edit to Justus McKinstry, however, and probably should resume using the term, at least in some circumstances, now that Hal has given up or mostly given up editing and is not likely to contend about it. I do not always acquiesce so easily, I might add, when I am sure that I can find sources to back up my point, but frankly, it seemed like too much trouble for a new user to argue over the point with an established and seemingly authoritative user. Some of the sources were contemporary publications, which while online, were a little difficult to examine. FWIW, I have one or two other points that I may change in articles, with support. I have substantially expanded the McKinstry article if you wish to look it over again. Donner60 (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, wikipedia is not limited to word-for-word repetition, just like contemporary English is used even if not the original language or form of that. Also, just as you said, the U.S. Volunteers are used, both in regards to units and to persons, within the ORs which makes it good enough for me to use. And as everybody is free to edit to their liking you´re free to do so, too. If you´re looking for changes thought to be more controversial a discussion on WPMILHIST might bring in more input ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the few other points I have in mind should be equally non-controversial although one could probably use some prior discussion. Donner60 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (John H. King) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating John H. King, GELongstreet!

Wikipedia editor Onel5969 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Nice job on this article. Keep up the good work."

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 Onel 5969  TT me 13:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese admirals list
Good day.

I am adding the admirals to have them on hand and thus be able to do it the way you say. Add the maximum range reached during your career or posthumously. XxSuguSxX (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Military History Backlog
Would you please consider taking a whack at some Soviet Aviation Military History articles? We could really use some help here. Thanks!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Admittedly out of my usual field of studies (and language) and I`m pretty sure that I´ll not be of much help. But of course I´ll have a look and might do smaller fixes here and there. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for creating Albany County militia. That category page needed some tweaking and you did a nice job using what was available to fashion a Wiki article and reduce the category page detail. Sorry for the delay but I've not been as active with Wiki. My heart's still here though. Pnoble805 (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You´re welcome. ...GELongstreet (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

African American in the American Civil War
Are you changing the Regiments, etc. to "African American"? I don't want to start further war edits if I am using "Colored" as apposed to "African American". Adamdaley (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I´m not, and see no reason to do so. Further answer in the respective discussion on MILHIST ...GELongstreet (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate); Thanks and a little history of the article
Thanks for working on this article. I have not seen all of the edits over time although I have edited the article occasionally. I think the current version is not too much different from my last stable version, with some good corrections and additions by you and a few others. However, I saw a recent edit and then looked at the history to see many edits that might have been questionable. Nonetheless, unless I am mistaken, the article is still in very good shape. Since I know that you are very knowledgeable in this area, I thought it likely you were watching for any obvious errors as well as editing the article.

I thought I would give you a little history of the article as best as I recall in the event it is of any interest. When I decided to finish the list of American Civil War generals several years ago and add information to it, I thought it would be helpful and necessary due to size to split it into Union and Confederate general lists. All of the generals were not even listed by name at that time. Icarus Phoenix finished the Union generals list while I finished the Confederate general list. Someone (probably an administrator) said the Confederate list was too large and should be split into several articles, like the Medal of Honor lists. I very much wanted it to be one article. I thought it would be harder to find and cross check information and would be less valuable if it was split into more than one article. I thought the notes were valuable but I trimmed them to reduce the number of bytes. I eliminated thumbnail photos for the same reason, which is why the Confederate list did not photos until recently. IcarusPhoenix added fewer notes to the Union list so he was not asked to reduce the number of bytes. I also made the "acting Confederate generals" list to add the militia generals and others who may have acted as generals but were not formally appointed. Those reductions in the number of bytes saved the article as a single article. That's the short version of how the articles developed to about 2012 and have more or less remained.

I note that thumbnail photos have now been added to the Confederate list. This does not seem to have added an enormous number of bytes. There are still nowhere near the number of bytes in the article as there were when the original concern was raised. Also, I think that the concern about too many bytes in articles in general, especially in long lists, has mostly dissipated. I have not seen it come up for several years.

IcarusPhoenix wanted to include the more important brevet Union generals with the substantive generals and did add them. In particular, about 58 of them were appointed by President Lincoln and served as generals during the war and he was most concerned that they be recognized. Of course, most of the brevet generals were honorary appointments made after the March 13, 1865 omnibus date. I added an article with the full list of brevet Union generals soon after we finished the main lists but Icarus Phoenix wanted to retain the ones that were already in the Union generals list in that list. I thought it was not worth debating at the time. I have not revisited that and I suppose I should get some agreement from others to make any change. IcarusPhoenix has not edited since 2015 and did not have very many edits after early 2013 so it may not be possible to discuss this with him, if I or anyone else decides to make any significant changes to the Union generals list. One possibility might be not to delete the brevets from the main Union list but to add the names only at the bottom in a separate category and link them to the brevet generals article as was done with some categories of Confederate generals.

Thanks again and keep up the good work! Donner60 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Editing changes on Medal of Honor - see section on the talk page for the article.
Hello GELongstreet: Just a quick request --- If you have some time kindly take a look at the Talk:Medal of Honor section of the article Medal of Honor for the Wikiproject Orders and Decorations and Medals (See the Samuel Adler section on the talk page). Apparently a question has arisen as to the quality and/or suitability of references which have been cited to support the inclusion of the German/American composer Samuel Adler (composer) as a recipient of an unusual Medal of Honor for services to Music (as opposed to combat services) as directed by General Dweight D. Eisenhower circa 1953 in post World War II Germany. Perhaps as an experienced Editor you might be able to share your expertise in the discussion in order to determine whether the references which have been cited are suitable. Many thanks in advance for your kind assistance and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia in the fututre. Repsectfully 104.207.219.150 104.207.219.150 (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)PS

Just a note
Could you please in the future when you remove a category, leave an edit summary for why you did it. I add and remove categories all the time. Overcategorized is what I write when a case like the one just arose comes up. Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:20, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do, too, and I did. The summary which I used, and use quite often, is "double/sub cat". ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a category problem with ACW articles. There is an editor removing establishment/disestablishment location categories with either 'Remove inappropriate category.' explanation or the unit was created before the ACW and was still around afterwards. First- Establishment/disestablishment by location is appropriate. By state if known, by United States of America if not specifically where it happened. As for the other explanation, then the articles that this editor also created are misleading. They clearly state a year for both its creation and mustering out that then is dead wrong or incomplete. This is involving dozens of articles and I addressed it on Spacini's talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the topic of establishment date categories being suitable for military units has been discussed before though I´m not sure what the outcome was. And yes, dates can be very tricky with units merging and reorganizing. Apparently hasn´t done any edits over the past weeks and your message on the talk is just some hours old so maybe you wait a bit and give him a chance to answer and accordingly engage in discussion. However if you two can´t solve that I suppose you bring it to the WikiProject Military History talk. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Train cops
You're a good person. I'm midly irritated at your removal of the train cops from the Railroad Police article, but it was validated.W183N (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I try to. Train cops is not an alternative form of the word Railroad Police, unlike Railway Police which you replaced with it. It is a colloquial term and therefore it doesn´t belong at that point. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year
 Happy New Year! GELongstreet,

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

Donner60 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
 * Thank you very much. I can only return the good wishes, and the thanks for your contributions as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Iredell County
Hi, I have come across your name several times. I am working on expanding the historical content on Iredell County, Statesville, Rowan County Regiment, and North Carolina Militia during the American Revolution. I don't live in the Iredell County but have been researching family that was in Iredell and Rowan County prior to 1800. I have been in contact with Mr. Stevenson from the Historical Society, Mr. Reese in the local history section of the County library, and J.D. Lewis. My mom had Homer Keever as a history teacher. Let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions. I have been using wikis for over a decade but recently got back into Wikipedia. Regards, Talk to G Moore 05:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Mississippi Union Civil War units
Hello, GELongstreet,

Thanks for creating List of Mississippi Union Civil War units! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Save Template:Chronology of military events in the American Civil War
Ciao, GElongstreet, please, it is possible can you help the Wikipedia Community to save this template from (senseless) deletion? You give your help at Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 25. Grazie e Ciao!! User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019, 16:00, UTC+1).


 * Grazie for your comments!!! Ciao, User talk:FDRMRZUSA (26 March 2019, 18:35, UTC+1).

2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry
I did make a couple of improvements to the article, but I agree that there are too many people who think the policies are etched in stone. All we have to do is rewrite it and make it looks unique and not a plain copy of the text the article cites. Nower603 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Which luckily was done once the article was listed, community effort. Thanks for closing that thing. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Question
In approximately four weeks, we will open nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections. Have you given any consideration to running? You'd make a good coordinator, I think, and Lord knows we could use some new blood in the team. Think it over, and if you have any questions you can ask me or check out WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I gave it some thought and looked into the duties, which of course include some stuff that I´m doing from time to time already. But I came to the conclusion that becoming a coordinator would not just formalize those but add a whole bunch of stuff I´m not really interested in and partially not competent with either. I think at this point running for coordinator would help neither the project nor me. Not to say that it may never be but not now. Anyway you have my thanks for considering me worthy of a possible nomination. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Chickamauga revert
Thanks for reverting my Chickamauga OOB edit. I failed to notice that there were 2 orders of battle, one for each day. I live in the Houston area and recently discovered (to my amazement) that very few Texas regiments had articles, so I'm trying to fix that. Djmaschek (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You´re welcome. It is a strange arrangement for an order of battle but given the situation it is validated. And my thanks for making those new articles, there are indeed many Texan units left. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Just checking
G'day, GELongstreet. Have you finished adding entries to Backlog Banzai? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not yet. One more to come, within the day. I´m not sure that everybody else has completed their lists either. Last year, if I remember correctly, the participants were give a few days to finalize them and I think it wasn´t said anywere that the listings must be completed within the month as well. ...GELongstreet (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No particular rush, but it would be great if you could submit the remainder in the next day or so. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Already done so. My score is entered in the worklist and awaiting your verification. ...GELongstreet (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hans Schimpf
Hi Why did you revert that? You see to basing your information on what your reading in the article, re: the dates rather than what research says. He was Kriegsmarine officer, specifically created almost at the start, while he was working at to enable him to carry weight in the cipher agency he was working to create at the beginning. He was one of the first of name. He never in the Reichmarine as far as I know, for most of his working life during the interwar period he worked for Abwehr. He was a bureaucrat.  scope_creep Talk  00:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see why you changed it. I'll dig out the book reference the next couple of days to check it. There was something about it. I'll check it.  scope_creep Talk  00:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no Kriegsmarine during his lifetime - it was the Reichsmarine until it was renamed later in 1935. Also, besides reentereing said wrong term, you´re also deleting my other stuff with your reverts so please stop reverting everything when simply in doubt of said term. He was no Kriegsmarine officer because there was no Kriegsmarine yet. ...GELongstreet (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
Happy Holidays text.png Hello GELongstreet: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 08:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message