User talk:Kresock/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

cleaned-up ACW battles infobox to match other like articles

Thanks for your help. Some guys have been sweeping through hundreds of articles with AWB, "cleaning up" articles in arbitrary ways. Beats me why they chose to mess that up; they don't always. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem. Doesn't slight cleanups for our slight cleanups cut into our anti-vandal time?! This isn't the first adjustment to those sweeps I've done, and I bet I'm not alone, but the good intentions are strongly there and its probably worth it. Kresock (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Garbage milk 7'' UK cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading [[:Image:Garbage milk 7'' UK cover.jpg]]. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Longstreet

And I thought Longstreet's article was quite stable, oh silly me! And I'm still not sure why this discussion wasn't carried out on the talk page for the article. Anyways I was under the impression that Wert has been relied upon as a trusted resource about the general, the most thorough and probably the most complete one out there. Even my keyboard recommends him! Your compromises should prevent any 3RR nonsense from occurring, and that's good. Like you say, the hashing out is best left up to other readers to decide with (hopefully) all evidence and points of view available in the page. Kresock (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is pretty stable, except for occasional episodes like this one, which is arguing over a couple of sentences. The reason it isn't on the article Talk page is that I couldn't induce 110fremont to discuss it there. All of it could be moved over. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruby

There's really no reason to include a band logo unless it's highly notable (ie. Nine Inch Nails). As for the reviews, you can quote a line or two per album in the body of the article, but there's no need for a separate section, especially if they just list various reviews with no context. Check out how some reviews are integrated into the article at R.E.M.. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ruby Band Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ruby Band Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle damage in Nathan Bedford Forrest

Hi Kresock, I came across this Twinkle edit that removed a number links and categories from the article Nathan Bedford Forrest. My bot already restored the interlanguage links, but could you please have a look at the article and undo the rest of the damage? This is caused by a nasty bug in Twinkle. --Silvonen (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Another user seems to have restored the missing article content. I hope the bug will be fixed soon. --Silvonen (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name mishap on Talk:Lost Odyssey

Sorry for mistaking you for Kieferskunk. I dearly apologise. Luigi6138 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:FootnotesSmall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:FootnotesSmall. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rockfang (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. Kresock (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Joseph E. Johnston

The information is duplicated in Early life, hence the removal from Postbellum life. --Tombomp (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk Kresock (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Confederate States Army Generals

Thanks for the formatting & clar. help on the page, and for the kind words. Losing the caps on the section "Generals" has messed up the redirects I made to them, but that was a minor fix. The page does look better and more complete now, and a lack of such an article has been bothering me for a while. I am pondering whether to include a table for the top 25-40 major generals as some of them were promoted and would be redundant (though one for the 350+ brigs probably is not gonna happen) and would love your imput on this and any other ideas for expansion. Perhaps on the talk page?. Kresock (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the redirects. I think your decision to tabulate only the three- and four-star generals was prudent. You could have a section called something like Other Notable Confederate Generals, but the selection process would be pretty arbitrary and subject to abuse. And there is also another list article that has all of the generals anyway.
Other suggestions: Figure out what you want to put into the Legacy section, at least in outline, or remove it. I, for one, have no idea what you intended to put in there. And if you want to be more complete/anal, you could include the nomination and confirmation dates for the generals. Sometimes the dates of rank are a little confusing to readers because they were often backdated, but the nomination date indicates when the government thought the officer had done a good job. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

6/17 DYK

Updated DYK query On 17 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article History of Confederate States Army Generals, 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.

--Bedford Pray 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

McLaws

I expanded on this article and ran into a problem with the text already on the page, and could use your help. I think the past editors condensed the military charges against him by Longstreet and later by Bragg, as well as Davis' intervention, all together. I tried to sort it out using McLaw's entry in Civil War High Commands, citing what I could. Could you look it over and make sure what I did sounds right to you? Thanks. Kresock (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the article with more details. Sometimes the official notations and orders that the Eichers present can be rather confusing, such as determining who actually ordered something (rather than simply signing the order). Interestingly enough, Braxton Bragg's participation in the court-martial of McLaws was as an enemy of Longstreet's. His name probably appeared on the order because he was the commander of the Army of Tennessee at the time of filing, but in February he became the military advisor to Jefferson Davis and was hoping to exact revenge on Longstreet by seeing to it that negative testimony about Longstreet would be included. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Isaac Erwin Avery - CSA Colonel.jpg

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Isaac Erwin Avery - CSA Colonel.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Corrected. Kresock (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Isaac E. Avery

I think a link to the website you got it from (along with whatever info you have about the original location) would be fine, to be honest. If you scanned it yourself, say so, and just say where from. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, that doesn't look reliable at all. I'm sure there will be a picture of him to be found somewhere a little more reliable- that may not even be him... J Milburn (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
That said, though, if you want to add that as the source, and explain why you're fairly certain it's public domain, I have no opposition to you doing that at all- you know the subject matter, and I trust your judgement on that front. J Milburn (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Joe Hooker

Thanks for finding the cite for his reaction to the nickname. He did indeed hate it. I ended up finding a less complete cite, mentioning only the "bandit" part, so yours is more complete. I was also considering adding a very small bit about his asking for Charles Stone for chief of staff. Catton's second book about the Army of the Potomac spends a few pages describing what happened to Stone at Ball's Bluff and praises Hooker for even asking for the exiled brigadier; I thought it could add to the character of Hooker.Kresock (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Stone anecdote is also in Sears Chancellorsville, p. 62, already in the Refs. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I updated the command changes. Most of this occurred as Hooker took command, not over time. The way you have worded the Stone affair is fine and makes it not appropriate to add the cite from Sears. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the timely assistance on Washington, D.C. in the American Civil War

Just as we've been discussing a merge, I was thankful you saw fit to add relevant and sourced material to build the article almost to start class. Thanks again. We're lucky to have you in the ACW cluster. BusterD (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Confederate States Army Generals

Oops, sorry about that. I've corrected them and also moved them above the tables so they're seen first when scrolling through the article. If that's not a good idea, by all means move them back. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard H. Anderson

I just finished some work on this page, and added a NPS map of part of the Battle of Spotsylvania CH to it. I was wondering if you have any plans to create one of your map drawings relating to this action, as the NPS one doesn't address the night march I added nor does it match most of the other ACW pages, a lot of which have your art in them. Thank you in advance. Kresock (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed it in your to-do list on your user page! Kresock (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess you also noticed that the to-do list is very long. :-) I will very likely not be able to do anything about Spotsylvania in this calendar year. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for letting me know I will fix the problem and start fixing them tonight. I will also double check my other rank changes. Please let me know if you notice anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard B. Garnett

I noticed your edit summary "don't point to USA rank articles for CSA" regarding the use the current rank links besides for general officers. What to use for those ranks this isn't covered in your style guide, but I do object to the CSA to USA conversions for all ranks, which was one of the driving forces behind the Histiory of CSA generals page. However I do not want to start adding something like :Colonel (CSA) for Col. and such to lots of pages in the hopes that Confederate equivalents will be written. Perhaps you plan to create articles for them (I would love to help with that, too) and I only wanted to link them to the closest available match.

Just to let you know, though I bet you watch them too, Kumioko was been doing lots of AWB rank link updating, so what you changed on Garnett to the non-USA versions will probably be changed right back the next time he goes through that part of the alphabet again. Both BusterD and I have reverted/talked to him when the wrong country is associated (see Stone's page) as well as other redirect problems with his edits. Let me know how you would like to see this handled. Kresock (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing how much time we are wasting on these rank links, for effects that are essentially inconsequential to most readers. Anyway, the generic/non-country specific rank links are not so bad as to cause any offense. I think that if there is no article about a CSA rank, it would be preferable to point to the generic link rather than to one about the United States. I don't think it is necessary to have CSA rank articles below general. The U.S. Army ranks have articles because there is a rich source of material involving the way the ranks progressed over 230+ years, their pay grades, etc. At least the CSA generals article has some interesting material about who the generals were, something you would not do for the lower ranks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this mass editing by Kumioko is a real pain in the butt. It adds very little practical value and only serves to mask substantive edits that might occur just before he sweeps through. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I began sticking to your recommendation on a new page for William Duncan Smith when it came to his ranks in the CSA. On a side note, I made the page with his Eichers' CW High Commands entry, but it is very much the dry bones of info; I suppose this obscure fellow is lucky to have a page anyway! If you have any meat for the article it would be greatly appreciated, but not of a great importance when. Kresock (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I did a couple of updates from Warner, but this guy was pretty obscure. Incidentally, do you think it is appropriate to put the U.S. Army portal link on a guy who was a Confederate general? I realize he was a junior officer in the U.S. Army first, but it just seems peculiar to me. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was peculiar as well, for the same reasoning you give, but it goes back to the Kumioko edits. When they go through this portal link is usually added to any west pointer for either army, often in a See also section (I've seen the section made just for that portal link!) Other conventions I've begun due to them is not spacing around section names (I did it just to save my eyesight, but Kumioko's AWB always kills the spaces), as well as using <-br-/-> instead of <-br->, which I've been using to save typing (I see no difference between the two myself.) And the Full General (CSA) link being replaced by History of Confederate States Army Generals#General to bybass my redirects; again I wanted to save us typing. Just wanna limit the AWB sweeping through that might hide edits we need to look at. Kresock (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A more correct portal would be for USMA, or alumni from there, or such, however I couldn't find them. I have no problem with the Army one being gassed, though. Kresock (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the form <-br-/-> is the one officially correct in the HTML specification. The older <-br-> still works, although syntax-checking tools will flag it as an error. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

command tables

Hi. In an edit summary, I made a reference to the brigade command table that you added to one of the general articles. Very, very few of the ACW biographies have tables of this type. There was a discussion probably a couple of years ago in the military history task force in which such tabular data was discouraged, preferring to see the information included within the context of the major portion of the text, intermixed with battles and other life events. The context of the discussion was some really lengthy tables about World War II and other modern generals in which they listed every promotion and every unit that they commanded from West Point through retirement -- sometimes as many as 30-40 entries for a typical military career. Yours are obviously a lot more modest, but it is something to consider. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry I had to look for your edit summary; it was already 4 deep in the history!) Hello. I haven't been actively edting that long so discussions like that I've missed. I've only done two or three of them so far, for a couple of reasons. I think the info should be included, but not in the main body lacking context, like where/battles/casualties/CO and the like. I also find it good to check various sources that get added later for inaccuracies, like when I find a bit in one of Foote's works (I have found a few instances in his writings lacking correct location/unit info) and other books. I've tried adding the info in the CW service sections, but never liked the looks of them. If you wish, I'll be happy to either table them in the CW section or move the lists to the talks until they can be fleshed out more properly. Just let me know. Kresock (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty understanding your response. The ideal solution is to remove the bulleted list (or table) entirely, using the notable information from it integrated into the text of the Civil War service sections (or antebellum or postbellum service, for that matter) within context. (And notice that I say "notable." A lot of command history data includes things like temporary commands for a week or so while the higher commander is on leave and I do not believe that rises to the level of notability useful in an encyclopedia article.) If temporarily moving that tabular data to the talk page accomplishes something for you, there is certainly no harm in that. By the way, feel free to use the "send me e-mail" link on my talk page whenever you want to discuss something. I find this style of cut and paste communications to be very clumsy. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Jacob G. Lauman

I have never heard of his name as Lanman. Lauman is a relatively common Germanic name. Thanks for starting the article - I trust you didn't mind that I picked up on the stub. By the way, keep up the good work! I appreciate your efforts. 8th Ohio Volunteers (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

John C. Pemberton

Hi mate. I thought I would just inform you of my reason's for changing the sub-sections on this page from " ; " to " === === ". The sub-sections on the page just did not appear to be proper headings to me due to the size, and as headings I felt they should also appear in the table of contents. However, as you are the main contributor to the article, feel free to revert or change the headings if you wish. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)