User talk:Kresock/Archive 6

James W. McMillan
Dear Kresock, yesterday I nominated the bio of James W. McMillan for the "Did you know". Yesterday I had little time, so I couldn't inform you. Please see the hook at Template_talk:DYK. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK, DYK, DYK
Dear Kresock,

I've nominated the bio of James M. Goggin for DYK. See the hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know. I've also started the bio of Charles Thomas Campbell and Robert Francis Catterson. If you can expand them, both may qualify for DYK. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Kresock, I've nominated Robert Francis Catterson for DYK. Can you develop the bio? Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kresock,

I've nominated the bio of Robert Francis Catterson for DYK. See the hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know. You've added:

"He then became commander of the Arkansas Negro militia under Governor Powell Clayton, engaged in fighting against the Ku Klux Klan members operating there,[5] and also as a United States Marshal."

Do you have citation for this? I've added [5], but citation is also required for "and also as a United States Marshal".

Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have to change anything. The bio may qualify for DYK. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

5 generals
I'm going to stay out of this dispute directly, but I don't think that flowery quote by Evans proves anything. You should have a secondary source that says "there were 5 ranks of general officer". Eicher, for instance, does not say that--they enumerate all the generals in four lists. G-in-C was a position, not a rank/paygrade. That was (and is) true in the US Army and, unless a secondary source contradicts me, is true for ACSA or PACS. (This is one of the reasons I tend to avoid using century-old secondary sources.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good day! Thank you for you thoughts. I did some wording changes to nail down the grades as they applied in late 1862, and put in a note about using the term "full" generals based on your previous edit. Let me know if it's adequate. Question: in Wert's bio of Longstreet, he refers to Bragg several times as general-in-chief, and I am wondering if this should be included on the page, probably as a footnote. Also I haven't forgotten about your to-do bios request, just that the fellows I've been working on aren't on it! Thanks. Kresock (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It will be interesting to see the reaction from certain quarters to these changes. The reason for the informal term "full general" is to remove the ambiguity between the rank and the generic description of any general officer. One way the modern U.S. Army deals with this is to use the expression four-star general (or O-10), but neither is appropriate for the Confederate States Army.

Bragg's status is covered in Eicher page 69. He was "charged with the conduct of military operations in the armies of the Confederacy" but I do not believe he was formally given a title for this role. Lee had exactly this role in 1862 and most historians refer to the position as "military advisor to the president." This is pretty comparable to what Henry W. Halleck did for Lincoln, although that position was called general in chief (what we would call Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army today). Lee in 1865 actually received the title of general in chief and had specific command authority over the armies, although it was obviously too late at that point to make any difference. Grant was general in chief in 1864 with that same command authority. Unlike the ranks/position ambiguity we are arguing about, Grant was given a new rank, lieutenant general, to accompany his new position.

One other comment: I noticed in some of the footnotes that you are equating date of rank with "date of confirmation." This is a bit ambiguous. The Congress acted on a particular day, but the date of rank was used specifically to indicate who outranked whom and is unrelated to the date or sequence in which Congress acted. According to Eicher page 807, Jefferson Davis actually assigned the date of rank. There were also dates of nomination and confirmation, which are interesting to understand because then you know which rank an officer carried on any actual date, rather than the usually backdated date of rank. (For instance, someone promoted to general officer with a date of rank of July 21, 1861, probably was not wearing general's insignia at First Manassas. It was backdated to serve as a reward for service in that battle. You have to look at the nomination date to determine when the government decided to promote the officer.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced the notes on the Line Command Lists with this:


 * Eicher, p. 807. whatever grade general rank dates determined by Jefferson Davis, who drew up promotion lists himself.
 * Let me know if this isn't clear enough. Bragg caught my attention since that was the first time anywhere I had seen him referred to as such, and I though that fact alone might be noteworthy, if not adding to the confusion. (I notice at the bottom on Robert E. Lee's page the use of "office" and "position" even if it's in a place few will read.) Always appreciate your taking the time to educate me! Kresock (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to imply, although you apparently did not infer, was that it would be useful to include dates of nomination and confirmation as distinct table columns, in addition to the date of rank. These can be found starting on page 787. Regarding your footnote, I would suggest that you use the same footnote (using the name= parameter on the ref tag) for each of the three tables so that you do not have to repeat the sentence about Jefferson Davis. The explanation in Eicher is "The ranking of officers of the same grade and date of rank was determined by Jefferson Davis, who made up promotion lists, usually following the guidelines established for the prewar U.S. Army." That is a bit more nuanced than the broad statement I made above, which might be interpreted to mean that Davis was using entirely arbitrary criteria. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How's it look now? I added the nom, conf, & re-conf date info for the full generals, just to see what it looks like and await feedback. If OK I'll add to the other tables as well, trying not to screw up the edit links and go around pics. Also, per your suggestion, I combined and updated the notes about Davis and the dates of rank. Kresock (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The table looks great. I would include the Eicher same grade/DOR remark in the footnote. What he's saying is that for two Maj. Gens. with DOR of July 3, 1863, Davis chose which one ranked the other (by deciding what order their names appeared in the list). Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Gardner Champlin
Dear Kresock, I've started another bio of ACW general, Stephen Gardner Champlin. If you can develop the bio, it may qualify for DYK. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work. AdjustShift (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hide/Show (collapse) in ACW template
Hi Kresock, I've replied to your question on Hal's talk page...trying to help..Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes and have the the tables working..they needed a title bar proper. Does the problem with images still exist? Not sure that I see that one... ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * New idea on my talk page. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A deal
Kresock,

Tell ya what. Let's make a deal. If you're reasonably neutral on the name of the GTR-1861 name (per the Museum in Strasburg and the History Channel Game), then let's trade: toss in your 2-cents on GTR-1861 talk to make a case that the current name is reasonable enough, and to quit hounding the Ghost, and I'll be happy to lend a hand on the CS Army page you are composing. The Ghost is a man of his word. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

History Civil War: Secret Missions
The name of the game DOES include the word History in its title, probably part of some agreement with Activison, just as their other games had "The History Channel" as part of their title. The official Activision site lists it as such, it is being sold as such, and the instruction booklet even uses the full title. Yes, it is part of the History Channnel's offerings, but for some reason, their name needs to be in there. The27thmaine (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles C. Walcutt
Great article!!! I added four or five categories and a few links, but there wasn't much needed as this is an excellent write-up! 8th Ohio Volunteer Infantry (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Dolores zombie.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Dolores zombie.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Burnside
Is it me, or is that guy an idiot? Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you Hal. Let's see what POV issues are brought up and deal with that. Kresock (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Dear Kresock,

Merry Christmas! BTW, I've started the bio of George Henry Chapman. If you can develop the bio, it may qualify for the "Did you know". Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started another bio - Augustus Louis Chetlain. If you can develop the bio, it may also qualify for the "Did you know". Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Kresock, can you develop Augustus Louis Chetlain? It may also qualify for the Did you know". Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

AdjustShift (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Hey Kresock, I've nominated Augustus Louis Chetlain for the "Did you know". I think you will develop the bio, so DYK credit is also given to you. Please develop it quickly. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Union Army generals
I wanted to let you know that I just finished with a major overhaul to the Union Army generals articles. I added infoboxes, persondata templates, links to the American Civil War and Army portals, links to the List of American Civil War generals article and in some cases typos, repaired links, added categories or references, etc. I am planning on doing the same thing to the Confederate generals next and will start that soon. I am sure that there is still a lot that can be done to some of them but this, I think was a big improvement to these articles. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.--Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Augustus Louis Chetlain

 * 04:55, 31 December 2008 by Dravecky

Confederate generals
Thanks I didn't realize that. I will fix that. Also, I don't know if you noticed this but I have been working on a different version of the Generals list. Still a lot too do but let me know what you think. New List of Generals --Kumioko (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for another "Did you know"
Dear Kresock,

I've started another bio of a Civil War general, Thomas Alfred Davies. You know what to do....please develop it. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've nominated the bio for "Did you know". Please see the hook at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

CSA Edits
You bring up a good point about the unit. I think that was a good idea using the last unit but in many cases its nt in the article or it doesn't specify when they where in the unit, just that they where in the unit. I had actually thought about just removing it. The reason that some links are on there multiple times is because it needs to be in order for the list to be considered for featured list status. I had also considered what you said about some not liking combining it but I think it will make a better product and easier for the readers (and its definately easier to link to from articles as you can see from my CSA edits that pointed to the wrong name). Your right its far from done and I appeciate the comments, please let me know if you notice anything else. I am also thinking about adding in their image if available.--Kumioko (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will be out for the next couple weeks but I should be able to work on that once I come back. I think I have most of the images but I could definately use help determining the last unit. If you want to see what it could look like with the image take a look at the List of Medal of Honor recipients pages. --Kumioko (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 edition
Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also: You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Portal:United States
 * 2) the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
 * 3) the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * 4) and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.