The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for Hog Farm is the name in the English Wikipedia's coverage of the American Civil War, with dozens on dozens of articles of quality, and has devoted years of his time and energy to the coordination and maintenance of MILHIST. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC). Harrias ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
@ Hog Farm: Thanks for looking at Battle of Charleston (1862), and glad to see you are back. No hurry here, as I am reviewing a page about a railroad, and the author and I may clash on dates used for the railroad's existence. By the way, one of my sources for the Battle of Charleston is a book by Terry Lowry published by 35th Star Publishing. Lowry is not a very organized writer, but he has access to numerous Civil War letters, newspapers, and other documents. I believe he is, or was, a historian at the West Virginia State Archives. Here is a link to a discussion about Lowry that I found: West Virginia History and Archives News. TwoScars ( talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Hog Farm! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Ezra Cricket ( talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
Ezra Cricket ( talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
So it looks like the gun is to our heads over Kentucky again. ☺ Hodge is an excellent source for fleshing out Rennick, and I wonder if there was something similar for the South Fork in Oneida. You might want to re-visit Whitaker, Kentucky ( AfD discussion) as I've looked at how Rennick and Hodge both systematize these. Uncle G ( talk) 11:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
You might enjoy User talk:Drmies#up the Creeks without an English professor. There's also a Civil War connection for you. I've only put the history in The Forks of Troublesome up as far as the founding of Hindman, which seems a sensible place to stop, although the geography can be current. But there's more after that; the Civil War rivalries amongst the various settlers echoed for years in Knott County, Kentucky#History and Hindman, Kentucky#History. Maybe you can find out more about Hays and Jones and the rest. Uncle G ( talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Enjoy
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky#GNIS mess, too.
Uncle G (
talk) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
... it's an example of why you SHOULD be a Coord ... you recognize and acknowledge issues, and aren't ego-driven :). Hope you don't feel at all that any of my comments there were aimed at you being the one to push the promote button ... you were just doing what has come to be expected. Hope this Christmas is filled with joy, health, and peace, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, can I ask you to give Ojos del Salado a quick check to see if it ready for a FAC candidacy? For after Guallatiri is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Remember the hot springs? Californians don't only write about hot springs.
Uncle G ( talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see you around again. You are a very talented editor and we're better when you are here. All your work is truly appreciated. Hope all is well. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Seems it's a good season for climbing back into the saddle, eh? What adventures across the wide and wondrous plains of American history shall we explore now? – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I thought this became a little too long and complicated to include on the assessment page so I am posting it here. Since you do not have the Eicher book, I am copying some excerpts here. Adding later: my second post below has a clearer indication of what this might mean and how I would probably handle it. With any luck, you will see the second short post at the same time as this long post and not have to revisit my clarified post on how I might handle the Eicher's take on rejected nominations.
David Stuart is one of those odd “might have been” cases, according to the Eichers. (Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1.) The Eichers define “might-have-beens” on page xxi: “This biographical section includes military, naval, and civilian officers who were formerly thought to qualify as high commanders, but about whom we now have doubts for apparent legal reasons, or because of a consensus of recent scholarship.”
At page 31, they wrote: “Appointments to a higher grade usually reverted to the previous lower grade when no confirmation occurred. The appointment was therefore often carried unofficially or considered an acting appointment pending the legal outcome of the confirmation or reversion.”
They add “a typical form letter for an official appointment” which is signed by the Secretary of War and reads in part: “You are hereby informed that the President of the United States has appointed you _________ in the service of the United States, to rank from the ___ day of _____ one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. Should the Senate, at there next session, advise and consent thereto, you will be commissioned accordingly.”
Further on that page, they state: “Steps 6 [nomination by the President] and 8 [confirmation on a vote with the “Advise and Consent” of the Senate were crucial steps [to obtain a commission], as stated in an opinion of the Attorney General (note: presumably Edward Bates but this is not shown): When a person has been nominated to an office by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and the commission has been signed by the President, and the Seal of the United States affixed thereto, his appointment to that office is complete.” Bracketed words from earlier in the page; my note in parenthesis.
On page xvii, the Eichers have a chart showing the number of “high commanders”: such as substantive generals, brevet generals, might have beens, politicians and a few other categories as shown by 24 sources, including their book. They show Warner as listing 556 substantive type (Union generals) and 32 “might have beens” while they show 564 substantive Union generals and 116 “might have beens.” Warner's introduction states that 583 generals have bios in the book, not the 588 that the Eichers tally. Marcus Wright's official War Department list in 1908 had 557 substantive generals and 32 “might-have-beens” according to the Eichers, one more in total than the Eichers state that Warner includes but six more than Warner himself states in his intorduction. I had not noticed these distinctions between substantive generals and might have beens in Warner or Wright and did not try to look for them now. Maybe they are there. But there is nothing in Warner's sketch of Stuart to eliminate him as a general of some sort except that he was not confirmed. Perhaps one has to discern them from the facts that the appointments were not confirmed and/or commissions not issued whether an officer was a might have been general. At page xvi, the Eichers state: “The collected record of claims for who is a general or flag officer and who isn't abounds with mistakes.” They also wrote: “Many dozens of fundamental mistakes now exist with regard to the military records of commanders on both sides. Numerous specific errors in individual studies have been cited in The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography by David J. Eicher (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1997). The bulk of this work attempts to set the record straight.”
The question becomes how should Stuart's appointment be described. He was appointed a brigadier general and acted as such. Legally, since he never was commissioned, he was actually not a general! Legally, he was not a “temporary” general or an “acting general”, since the appointment did not specify that. “Colonel commanding....” would not be accurate, at least not at the time, and I am confident he would have never signed any order or communication with that identification. Eicher probably comes closest to actual circumstance by using the term “acting general” pending the final commission or reversion in rank.
Sorry to throw this complication at you but I thought you should take Eicher into consideration, or not, depending on how you might look at it and the source(s) you are depending on.
At page 611, the Eichers give Stuart's cause of death as “of paralysis, Detroit, Mich, 11 Sept. 1988; in., Elmwood Cemetery, Detroit.”
You seem to have enough material to go for a GA. I have seen a number of military bios and written a few. Some of the bios written by Zawed are relatively brief but have been assessed GA (by others). Usually, the bios that I have written or seen would have an “Early life” section, then a service section, divided into sub-sections if the service was lengthy and/or distinguished, then a “Later life” section if the officer survived into retirement. The early and later life sections are often short, as yours would be if you split them off - especially the later life. Often, I suppose, there isn't much information available.
I am adding a few minutes after posting this that Djmaschek has assessed the article as B. I thought I would leave this note answering your question about GA before going on to the current assessment. Djmaschek took care of that and made a few suggestions concerning additions and clarifications.
If something occurs to me on re-reading the article, I'll let you know but I think it is quite good as it is. Donner60 ( talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I much appreciate your nomination of me. I think the prolific contributors of higher assessed articles and reviews, including you since you are only recently semi-tired and as someone also pointed out, still contributing much valuable content, are more deserving. Now, if there was a military history gnome of the year.... Again, thanks for the recognition. Donner60 ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️
Hi Hog Farm! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Thanks as always for the invaluable work you do at FAC. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers,{{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Isondiga you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS John P. Jackson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed ( talk) 22:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS New Orleans you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The article CSS Isondiga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Isondiga for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Isondiga/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2023 Military Historian of the Year | ||
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the coveted Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2023 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between October and December 2023.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The article CSS New Orleans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS New Orleans for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS New Orleans/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The article USS John P. Jackson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS John P. Jackson for comments about the article, and Talk:USS John P. Jackson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed ( talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 00:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan and Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan for comments about the article, and Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Evening HF, I trust that things are going well for you, especially in your busy off-Wiki existence. Speaking of which, I am now something of a fan of the Turnpike Troubadours, so thanks for accidentally introducing me. Two of your multifarious FAs have been scheduled for March, Grant's Canal and William Y. Slack. Fancy having a go at blurbs for them? Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!— Wehwalt ( talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "In mid-1862, the Union decided that the city of Vicksburg could not be taken with the forces on hand, so they decided to bypass Vicksburg with a canal (in the process breaking local law which forbade messing with the river's path). Disease and low water levels doomed that attempt. In early 1863, another attempt on Vicksburg had fizzled out and the canal idea was tried again. This time, there was too much water and everything flooded, in addition to another round of disease. After the war, the Mississippi perversely cut a similar path on its own, although the government has since reverted the river back."! - Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. .. Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you today for William Y. Slack, introduced: "A small-town lawyer from Chillicothe, Missouri, Slack served briefly in the Missouri House of Representatives and in the US Army in the Mexican War in the 1840s. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Slack sided with the pro-Confederate state militia and was appointed a general officer in the militia. He fought at Carthage in July 1861, took a bullet to the hip at Wilson's Creek in the next month, and transferred to formal Confederate service in the winter of 1861/1862. While leading a brigade at Pea Ridge in March 1862, he took another wound close to the site of the old Wilson's Creek one. This injury proved fatal and he died two weeks later. The Confederate government later promoted Slack to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate service; they may not have known he was dead."! - Second TFA this month, and a new FA, that's impressing! On Bach's birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2024 round of the Military History Article Writing Contest, with 26 points from three articles, one brought to FA class and two brought to GA class. Well done. Donner60 ( talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Per your request, I've got this one listed as the April 29th TFA. No need to do anything. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@ TwoScars: Just after I wrote my note on the Battle of Antietam reassessment, the covid that my wife brought home spread to me. My activity and energy were greatly reduced. We have now tested negative but I have some lingering symptoms (unless allergies or something else). I have been working on some coordinator tasks most days but have much catching up to do here and in real life. It seems as if that may take a few weeks, at least. I thought I should let you know the reason for my reduced activity. With any luck that will change over the next few weeks. Donner60 ( talk) 07:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@ TwoScars: There appears to be no rush to finish this. Yesterday, User GabrielPenn4223 was blocked indefinitely by User Bbb. After I looked at GabrielPenn4223's user talk page, I think the block was fully justiable and necessary. He was a disruptive editor, apparently immature, willing to sock, and in disregard of several warnings and suggestions about how to proceed on Wikipedia and what to learn about advanced areas of the project. He was dabbling in areas that he obviously had no business fooling with. He had two previous blocks that I noticed. He was putting up articles for review or for deletion in large numbers and seemingly at random and without a good basis in many cases. Battle of Antietam apparently needed some work but this was a case of a lucky shot by a loose cannon. Perhaps you or TwoScars or me can close this when the editing is finished. It can take a little time but your move will get done satisfactorily in due time. Donner60 ( talk) 06:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The Good Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Battle of Antietam retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd like not to be pinged for anything concerning the GA process, broadly construed. Thanks. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bayou Fourche you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade ( talk) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Wanted to advise you of this discussion:
I know you made quite a few revisions to the article in January 2023. I believe you may have removed some of the language that I felt should be restored. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hog Farm - I hope all is well. I have some stuff going on this week, and probably will not be able to do any Wikipedia work on Monday and Tuesday. I should be able to get back to it on Wednesday. TwoScars ( talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Hog Farm, I noticed you did a pre-FAC review for Ojos del Salado in December so I was just wondering if you would be interested in doing a pre-FAC review for Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. It's a lengthy article so any input would be helpful. Thanks. Volcano guy 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Schierbecker ( talk) 07:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Hog Farm:@ Donner60: have you looked at the references and citations on Third Battle of Winchester today? Hhfjbaker has totally messed them up. To fix the mess, I might have to make about 10 reverts unless they fix it. TwoScars ( talk) 16:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Battle of Bayou Fourche you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade ( talk) 17:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, was wondering if you had time to do a pre-FAC checkup of Cerro Panizos, as I plan to send it to FAC after Hudson. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi HF, could you possibly leave your comments on this FAC about the Aston Martin DB9? (This is my first nomination). The source and image review have both been concluded, so I think that, because this is my first, it will need quite a lot of supports. Thanks and best, and don't feel obliged to, 750h+ | Talk 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Hog_Farm/Editnotice&action=edit&redlink=1
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between January and March 2024.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Battle of Grand Gulf is going to be TFA on 4/29 - due to work being busy that day I will not be able to adequately monitor the TFA for changes that day. I would appreciate it if people keep an eye on that one in case it attracts problematic edits through the semi-protection. Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for Hog Farm is the name in the English Wikipedia's coverage of the American Civil War, with dozens on dozens of articles of quality, and has devoted years of his time and energy to the coordination and maintenance of MILHIST. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC). Harrias ( talk) via MilHistBot ( talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
@ Hog Farm: Thanks for looking at Battle of Charleston (1862), and glad to see you are back. No hurry here, as I am reviewing a page about a railroad, and the author and I may clash on dates used for the railroad's existence. By the way, one of my sources for the Battle of Charleston is a book by Terry Lowry published by 35th Star Publishing. Lowry is not a very organized writer, but he has access to numerous Civil War letters, newspapers, and other documents. I believe he is, or was, a historian at the West Virginia State Archives. Here is a link to a discussion about Lowry that I found: West Virginia History and Archives News. TwoScars ( talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Happy First Edit Day! Hi Hog Farm! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Ezra Cricket ( talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
Ezra Cricket ( talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).
Interface administrator changes
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
So it looks like the gun is to our heads over Kentucky again. ☺ Hodge is an excellent source for fleshing out Rennick, and I wonder if there was something similar for the South Fork in Oneida. You might want to re-visit Whitaker, Kentucky ( AfD discussion) as I've looked at how Rennick and Hodge both systematize these. Uncle G ( talk) 11:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
You might enjoy User talk:Drmies#up the Creeks without an English professor. There's also a Civil War connection for you. I've only put the history in The Forks of Troublesome up as far as the founding of Hindman, which seems a sensible place to stop, although the geography can be current. But there's more after that; the Civil War rivalries amongst the various settlers echoed for years in Knott County, Kentucky#History and Hindman, Kentucky#History. Maybe you can find out more about Hays and Jones and the rest. Uncle G ( talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Enjoy
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky#GNIS mess, too.
Uncle G (
talk) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
... it's an example of why you SHOULD be a Coord ... you recognize and acknowledge issues, and aren't ego-driven :). Hope you don't feel at all that any of my comments there were aimed at you being the one to push the promote button ... you were just doing what has come to be expected. Hope this Christmas is filled with joy, health, and peace, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, can I ask you to give Ojos del Salado a quick check to see if it ready for a FAC candidacy? For after Guallatiri is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Remember the hot springs? Californians don't only write about hot springs.
Uncle G ( talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see you around again. You are a very talented editor and we're better when you are here. All your work is truly appreciated. Hope all is well. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Seems it's a good season for climbing back into the saddle, eh? What adventures across the wide and wondrous plains of American history shall we explore now? – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I thought this became a little too long and complicated to include on the assessment page so I am posting it here. Since you do not have the Eicher book, I am copying some excerpts here. Adding later: my second post below has a clearer indication of what this might mean and how I would probably handle it. With any luck, you will see the second short post at the same time as this long post and not have to revisit my clarified post on how I might handle the Eicher's take on rejected nominations.
David Stuart is one of those odd “might have been” cases, according to the Eichers. (Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1.) The Eichers define “might-have-beens” on page xxi: “This biographical section includes military, naval, and civilian officers who were formerly thought to qualify as high commanders, but about whom we now have doubts for apparent legal reasons, or because of a consensus of recent scholarship.”
At page 31, they wrote: “Appointments to a higher grade usually reverted to the previous lower grade when no confirmation occurred. The appointment was therefore often carried unofficially or considered an acting appointment pending the legal outcome of the confirmation or reversion.”
They add “a typical form letter for an official appointment” which is signed by the Secretary of War and reads in part: “You are hereby informed that the President of the United States has appointed you _________ in the service of the United States, to rank from the ___ day of _____ one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. Should the Senate, at there next session, advise and consent thereto, you will be commissioned accordingly.”
Further on that page, they state: “Steps 6 [nomination by the President] and 8 [confirmation on a vote with the “Advise and Consent” of the Senate were crucial steps [to obtain a commission], as stated in an opinion of the Attorney General (note: presumably Edward Bates but this is not shown): When a person has been nominated to an office by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and the commission has been signed by the President, and the Seal of the United States affixed thereto, his appointment to that office is complete.” Bracketed words from earlier in the page; my note in parenthesis.
On page xvii, the Eichers have a chart showing the number of “high commanders”: such as substantive generals, brevet generals, might have beens, politicians and a few other categories as shown by 24 sources, including their book. They show Warner as listing 556 substantive type (Union generals) and 32 “might have beens” while they show 564 substantive Union generals and 116 “might have beens.” Warner's introduction states that 583 generals have bios in the book, not the 588 that the Eichers tally. Marcus Wright's official War Department list in 1908 had 557 substantive generals and 32 “might-have-beens” according to the Eichers, one more in total than the Eichers state that Warner includes but six more than Warner himself states in his intorduction. I had not noticed these distinctions between substantive generals and might have beens in Warner or Wright and did not try to look for them now. Maybe they are there. But there is nothing in Warner's sketch of Stuart to eliminate him as a general of some sort except that he was not confirmed. Perhaps one has to discern them from the facts that the appointments were not confirmed and/or commissions not issued whether an officer was a might have been general. At page xvi, the Eichers state: “The collected record of claims for who is a general or flag officer and who isn't abounds with mistakes.” They also wrote: “Many dozens of fundamental mistakes now exist with regard to the military records of commanders on both sides. Numerous specific errors in individual studies have been cited in The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography by David J. Eicher (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1997). The bulk of this work attempts to set the record straight.”
The question becomes how should Stuart's appointment be described. He was appointed a brigadier general and acted as such. Legally, since he never was commissioned, he was actually not a general! Legally, he was not a “temporary” general or an “acting general”, since the appointment did not specify that. “Colonel commanding....” would not be accurate, at least not at the time, and I am confident he would have never signed any order or communication with that identification. Eicher probably comes closest to actual circumstance by using the term “acting general” pending the final commission or reversion in rank.
Sorry to throw this complication at you but I thought you should take Eicher into consideration, or not, depending on how you might look at it and the source(s) you are depending on.
At page 611, the Eichers give Stuart's cause of death as “of paralysis, Detroit, Mich, 11 Sept. 1988; in., Elmwood Cemetery, Detroit.”
You seem to have enough material to go for a GA. I have seen a number of military bios and written a few. Some of the bios written by Zawed are relatively brief but have been assessed GA (by others). Usually, the bios that I have written or seen would have an “Early life” section, then a service section, divided into sub-sections if the service was lengthy and/or distinguished, then a “Later life” section if the officer survived into retirement. The early and later life sections are often short, as yours would be if you split them off - especially the later life. Often, I suppose, there isn't much information available.
I am adding a few minutes after posting this that Djmaschek has assessed the article as B. I thought I would leave this note answering your question about GA before going on to the current assessment. Djmaschek took care of that and made a few suggestions concerning additions and clarifications.
If something occurs to me on re-reading the article, I'll let you know but I think it is quite good as it is. Donner60 ( talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I much appreciate your nomination of me. I think the prolific contributors of higher assessed articles and reviews, including you since you are only recently semi-tired and as someone also pointed out, still contributing much valuable content, are more deserving. Now, if there was a military history gnome of the year.... Again, thanks for the recognition. Donner60 ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 ( talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️
Hi Hog Farm! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Thanks as always for the invaluable work you do at FAC. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!Cheers,{{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Isondiga you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS John P. Jackson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed ( talk) 22:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS New Orleans you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The article CSS Isondiga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Isondiga for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Isondiga/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
2023 Military Historian of the Year | ||
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the coveted Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2023 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between October and December 2023.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
The article CSS New Orleans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS New Orleans for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS New Orleans/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe ( talk) 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The article USS John P. Jackson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS John P. Jackson for comments about the article, and Talk:USS John P. Jackson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed ( talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 00:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan and Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan for comments about the article, and Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Evening HF, I trust that things are going well for you, especially in your busy off-Wiki existence. Speaking of which, I am now something of a fan of the Turnpike Troubadours, so thanks for accidentally introducing me. Two of your multifarious FAs have been scheduled for March, Grant's Canal and William Y. Slack. Fancy having a go at blurbs for them? Cheers. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 March 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!— Wehwalt ( talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "In mid-1862, the Union decided that the city of Vicksburg could not be taken with the forces on hand, so they decided to bypass Vicksburg with a canal (in the process breaking local law which forbade messing with the river's path). Disease and low water levels doomed that attempt. In early 1863, another attempt on Vicksburg had fizzled out and the canal idea was tried again. This time, there was too much water and everything flooded, in addition to another round of disease. After the war, the Mississippi perversely cut a similar path on its own, although the government has since reverted the river back."! - Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. .. Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you today for William Y. Slack, introduced: "A small-town lawyer from Chillicothe, Missouri, Slack served briefly in the Missouri House of Representatives and in the US Army in the Mexican War in the 1840s. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Slack sided with the pro-Confederate state militia and was appointed a general officer in the militia. He fought at Carthage in July 1861, took a bullet to the hip at Wilson's Creek in the next month, and transferred to formal Confederate service in the winter of 1861/1862. While leading a brigade at Pea Ridge in March 1862, he took another wound close to the site of the old Wilson's Creek one. This injury proved fatal and he died two weeks later. The Confederate government later promoted Slack to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate service; they may not have known he was dead."! - Second TFA this month, and a new FA, that's impressing! On Bach's birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | ||
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2024 round of the Military History Article Writing Contest, with 26 points from three articles, one brought to FA class and two brought to GA class. Well done. Donner60 ( talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Per your request, I've got this one listed as the April 29th TFA. No need to do anything. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@ TwoScars: Just after I wrote my note on the Battle of Antietam reassessment, the covid that my wife brought home spread to me. My activity and energy were greatly reduced. We have now tested negative but I have some lingering symptoms (unless allergies or something else). I have been working on some coordinator tasks most days but have much catching up to do here and in real life. It seems as if that may take a few weeks, at least. I thought I should let you know the reason for my reduced activity. With any luck that will change over the next few weeks. Donner60 ( talk) 07:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@ TwoScars: There appears to be no rush to finish this. Yesterday, User GabrielPenn4223 was blocked indefinitely by User Bbb. After I looked at GabrielPenn4223's user talk page, I think the block was fully justiable and necessary. He was a disruptive editor, apparently immature, willing to sock, and in disregard of several warnings and suggestions about how to proceed on Wikipedia and what to learn about advanced areas of the project. He was dabbling in areas that he obviously had no business fooling with. He had two previous blocks that I noticed. He was putting up articles for review or for deletion in large numbers and seemingly at random and without a good basis in many cases. Battle of Antietam apparently needed some work but this was a case of a lucky shot by a loose cannon. Perhaps you or TwoScars or me can close this when the editing is finished. It can take a little time but your move will get done satisfactorily in due time. Donner60 ( talk) 06:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive | |
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
| |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
( t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The Good Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Battle of Antietam retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 04:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).
|
|
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd like not to be pinged for anything concerning the GA process, broadly construed. Thanks. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bayou Fourche you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade ( talk) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Wanted to advise you of this discussion:
I know you made quite a few revisions to the article in January 2023. I believe you may have removed some of the language that I felt should be restored. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Hog Farm - I hope all is well. I have some stuff going on this week, and probably will not be able to do any Wikipedia work on Monday and Tuesday. I should be able to get back to it on Wednesday. TwoScars ( talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Hog Farm, I noticed you did a pre-FAC review for Ojos del Salado in December so I was just wondering if you would be interested in doing a pre-FAC review for Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. It's a lengthy article so any input would be helpful. Thanks. Volcano guy 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Schierbecker ( talk) 07:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Hog Farm:@ Donner60: have you looked at the references and citations on Third Battle of Winchester today? Hhfjbaker has totally messed them up. To fix the mess, I might have to make about 10 reverts unless they fix it. TwoScars ( talk) 16:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please
join the project or sign up
here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from
this page. Your editors,
Ian Rose (
talk) and
Nick-D (
talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
The article Battle of Bayou Fourche you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade ( talk) 17:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, was wondering if you had time to do a pre-FAC checkup of Cerro Panizos, as I plan to send it to FAC after Hudson. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi HF, could you possibly leave your comments on this FAC about the Aston Martin DB9? (This is my first nomination). The source and image review have both been concluded, so I think that, because this is my first, it will need quite a lot of supports. Thanks and best, and don't feel obliged to, 750h+ | Talk 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Hog_Farm/Editnotice&action=edit&redlink=1
Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) | ||
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between January and March 2024.
Hawkeye7 (
talk) via
MilHistBot (
talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste |
Battle of Grand Gulf is going to be TFA on 4/29 - due to work being busy that day I will not be able to adequately monitor the TFA for changes that day. I would appreciate it if people keep an eye on that one in case it attracts problematic edits through the semi-protection. Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)