User talk:Scott Mingus

This user may have left Wikipedia. Scott Mingus has not edited Wikipedia since 19 December 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Author of multiple Civil War books, including:

• Flames Beyond Gettysburg: The Confederate Expedition to the Susquehanna River, June 1863
• The Louisiana Tigers in the Gettysburg Campaign: June-July 1863
• Confederate General William "Extra Billy" Smith: From Virginia's Statehouse to Gettysburg Scapegoat
• Civil War Voices from York County, Pennsylvania: Remembering the Rebellion and the Gettysburg Campaign
• Echoing Still: More Civil War Voices from York County, Pennsylvania
• Human Interest Stories of the Gettysburg Campaign Volume 1
• Human Interest Stories of the Gettysburg Campaign Volume 2
• Gettysburg Glimpses: True Stories from the Battlefield
• Gettysburg Glimpses 2: More True Stories from the Battlefield
• Human Interest Stories from Antietam
• The Northern Central Railway in the Civil War: 1861-1865
• The Second Battle of Winchester: The Confederate Victory That Opened the Door to Gettysburg (with Eric Wittenberg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great; seen the new article. Good stuff. BlueValour 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Could have a look at this article:

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

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

-- Grue  11:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! I'm sitting in a hotel in southern Ohio as I type this. I've been filling out Category:Kansas in the Civil War tonight, as well as Category:Missouri in the Civil War for those biographies and places not covered in your excellent template. Keep up the good work, and please join the Civil War Task Force! We'd love to have you on board. Scott Mingus 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Scott for your prompt comments! You've really added some cool stuff to Kansas. My personal history floats across the state line between in Missouri and Kansas (with majority in Missouri). While I'm normally reluctant to join task forces, I should probably join the Civil War since I kinda know how track down stuff in the two states. Thanks again and do keep up the good work. I'm always amazed at how good and comprehensive the Civil War stuff is (other than of course the nuances of the Kansas and Missouri issues). Americasroof 01:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Your mention of the wounded NC soldier made it tough [life CAN be tough sometimes] to decide what picture to use so i made a sort of collage of two shots. Please check it out at Gutzon Borglum and if you think it doesn't work. let me know. I'm too close to be objective. Carptrash 21:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the photo critique. A little voice inside me was ;STRONGLY; hinting that what i did was not really what was needed, but you [always, if possible, blame someone else] got me going with the "wounded soldier" remark. Likely i'll do something to it later. I was trying to decide if i wanted to move most of the pictures [most are mine anyway] into a gallery and leave the text as . . . .... text. I actually prefer spreading them around, but it seems that wikipedia preference is going the other way. Another, "We'll see." Carptrash 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you find yourself in the NYC area in a hotel room, let me know; I can show you some great spots for food. As to article introductions, I think it works best if you continue to focus on the articles (of course if you see anything at P:ACW, feel free to fix it) so that every reader gets your effort. What I see as necessary in each GPotS portal article is a basic introduction to the state's participation which well represents the entire article. This sounds like what any good article intro should contain. I see about two paragraphs, say, 200-300 words. For example:

"The state of Whatsis contributed to the ACW primarily in the areas of goobers, lemonheads, and malted milk balls. Over 50,000 lemonheads were contributed to the North/South cause, with Junctiontown, Whatsis being a primary source of goober/MMB production during the war.

"The battles of orange, grape, and guava were fought within the boundaries of Whatsis, though the guava campaign was primarily in the state of Whosits. The prison camp of sugar shack was especially well known for its poor treatment of dental health and the resulting 30,000 cavities treated was testimony to the ... North/South leader Tootie Frootie was born in ..."

And so forth. Kinda vanilla, but we'll write them much better than that. When we get a good one, we'll add the state to the queue. BusterD 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! BusterD 00:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for visiting my Talk page. On Talk:Naming the American Civil War I've proposed a few points that we might build a consensus around. Would like some feedback from editors who work regularly on CW articles. Also some help in dousing the fire.

Please see the last secton on the talk page, if you can. -- Alarob 00:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks! for the feedback. I think I will work on improving the quality of the article on the USS Hunchback. Chris Kreider 13:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Scott. I feel better knowing that the project that initiated the libraries in Ohio gets to decide its fate. You are a dear.CRKingston 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Fairborn, graduated from Wright State, and I spent hours at the Fairborn branch of the Greene Co library. I even worked there for a while in college. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CRKingston (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you and some other wargamers possibly do this? Wandalstouring 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only do Civil War miniature wargaming - no other periods. Hence, I would not be of any help to this effort as the major ACW articles are more than adequately illustrated with maps.Scott Mingus 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott,

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

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

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

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

Scott & Hal,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott, is there enough info around (such as a source) that this one can be expanded in any way? Or is this destined for deletion due to lack of notability? If it ties into a campaign or something then even if it doesn't rise to notability in its own right we could add a paragraph or two to the relevant campaign or action. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the operations in this sector of the state. Red Harvest (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion. Red Harvest (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has replaced the October engagement with the August one and removed the deletion nomination. That will probably do as the October one apparently lacks notability. Red Harvest (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Scott, there is a bit of controversy brewing as apparently there are two different stories about what happened after Bowlegs moved from Florida. Could we get some of your expertise at Talk:Billy Bowlegs#Florida in the Civil War cat to evaluate sources? Thanks, BanyanTree 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would just like to point out that in Banyan's research to try and prove exactly which of the Billy Bowlegs was actually the Captain Billy Bowlegs he found this Fort Gibson National Cemetery. Which is a link to the cemetary in question where Captain Bowlegs is buried. It clearly states that the Captain Billy Bowlegs that is buried in their cemetary is Sonuk Mikko and not (Holata Micco, Halpatter-Micco, and Halpuda Mikko). I am currently in discussions with several historians from the National Park Service. Over their explanation of this. The response I have recieved so far is that the Captain Billy Bowlegs buried in the cemetary real name Sonuk Mikko, Is not likely to be The one of Seminole war fame Holato Mikko. In all likely hood it could posibly be his son. There is record of a Billy Bowlegs being born on the Seminole Nation in Oklahoma in 1932. I have found several Billy Bowlegs that fit the time period. I also have found documented records of Billy Bowlegs of the seminole war dying in 1859 this was in a book published in 1872 wrttien by Frances Samuel Drake. My contest had been the whole time. That the records from the war never stated which of the many Billy Bowlegs it was. That is until he found the record from the cemetary that states Sonuk Mikko. Which to me as a geneaologist is the proof that finally sets the record straight. But I would like your opinion as wellSwampfire (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have actually resolved this. ThanksSwampfire (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brief article has recently been merged into History of Washington, D.C. with little discussion. I disagree with this merge, especially since the merge request first appeared less than a week ago, because the article is part of the series "state or territory in the American Civil War". If this is interesting to you, please consider joining the discussion. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has begun of standardized infoboxes for state/local involvement articles, many of which were started or significantly edited by yourself. If you have time, please stop in. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott Mingus. You contributed to this page which has been nominated for deletion. I hope you will help keep this from happening. The article needs improvement and strengthening, not deletion. Regards, Hmose (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I had a quick question concerning the proper categorization of these battles. I put the battles of Fort Sumter and Charleston Harbor in the Operations in Charleston Harbor category, with the rest in the Operations Against the Defenses of Charleston category. Are these the categories they belong in? I'm still a bit confused about which battles these categories were meant to contain. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Wild Wolf (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming down to Loudon County this next weekend to work with the local guide crew and other volunteers to spruce up the battlefield park at Ball's Bluff. You available? Get a personal tour by the local experts? I'll buy first round... BusterD (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to add the RS to the References section ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW is the template for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_from_Alameda_County,_California for where some one is born ie: hometown, or just that they were there before they died ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, sir! I think this is the first time talking to you. Question: I've been expnading on Couch's article, and I want to include what you added back in '06 to the intro about his PA militia involvement, either there or in the Gettysburg sub-section. I cannot cite it, though, and was wondering if you could, especially if it from the Heidler work already in the refs. Appreciate any help you can give. Kresock (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The material on the PA militia came from my book, Flames Beyond Gettysburg: The Gordon Expedition, June 1863. It is based upon material from the Official Records and from the late Al Gambone's Engimatic Valor: Major General Darius N. Couch. I will provide specific pages from Gambone tonight; leaving now for work... Scott Mingus (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. Appreciate the response! Kresock (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the cites. I got sources saying "coach" as does the IPA I think Hal added along the way. This can easily be included in the footnotes for those who would care to know. Not as important as what he did in life anyway. Thanks for the help! Kresock (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cold Wars (gaming) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources to establish notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Explodicle (T/C) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CWNbox.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Burning of Platte City section needs updating based on "William M Paxton 1905 Deposition of Civil War Courthouse Burining", published in Platte County Missouri Historical & Genealogical Society Bulletin of January-April 2010. Much of the deposition confirms facts included in the Wikipedia article but does dispute the statement at the end of the article: "In 1864 he returned to Platte City and Union troops once again burned the city." The Bulletin is not available online but I can provide an electronic copy if you are interested.Jau53 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Jim U'Ren [email protected] 1105 4th St Platte City, MOJau53 (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit this article. I made a couple small changes to it a couple of years ago but have nothing vested in that article and am now retired from Wikipedia to focus on writing historical non-fiction books. Scott

Hello, Scott Mingus! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My team has published a free online educational game about Morgan's Raid at https://sites.google.com/site/morgansraidgame. Do you think this is an appropriate link for inclusion in the Morgan's Raid article, related links section? Your name was listed as a major contributor to the article, and Wikipedia suggested contacting you rather than posting the link myself.

First time using "Talk" feature... I hope I am doing this right.

Paul.gestwicki (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

The article Hard Road (2nd South Carolina String Band album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattg82 (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

Category:American Civil War nurses, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Scott Mingus! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical Miniatures Gaming Society is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Miniatures Gaming Society until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BirdbrainedPhoenix (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

Hi, was just reviewing the Atlantic locomotive article and found you wrote most of Phineas_Davis back when! Might I suggest you add a few cites and the source material before one of the tag-hanging nazi's find it's been missed. Keep up the good work, that's an impressive first draft. May I suggest employing Phineas in a subcat of Category:Locomotives_by_builder as well? Best regards // FrankB 14:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 18:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Thanks for creating Nashville Convention. Would you be able to add inlined references please? Also, is there a list of the seventy-six delegates? Were they prominent planters?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely, rarely visit Wikipedia any more as I focus on writing Civil War books. Scott Mingus (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Cyclorama.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott. I have added a source to the file and re-named it as File:Gettysburg Cyclorama.jpg, as it was shadowing an unrelated image on the Commons. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I so rarely visit Wikipedia anymore (no time between my work career, family events, and writing still more Civil War books), so I appreciate this gesture! Scott Mingus (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiment redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Camp Thomas (Ohio) to Camp Thomas before I saw this talk page, changing from a redirect to a direct Wikilink. Acceptable now?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott Mingus, since you started the article on the Florida in the American Civil War..., I was wondering if it would make sense to have the Battles in Florida alphabetically listed. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:HMJudah.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Category:American Civil War nurses has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bloodiest Day. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2#Bloodiest Day until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle Cry (Milton Bradley game) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Official reports. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 3#Official reports until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 20:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article CHARGE! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (media) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Battle of Falling Waters and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28#Battle of Falling Waters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 21:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added your user name to the Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians list because you have not had an edit since October 19, 2015. If you return, please remove it. I hope you are well. Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Battle of Fort Blakely and Spanish Fort has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 23 § Battle of Fort Blakely and Spanish Fort until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]