Jump to content

User talk:Hooks34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, Hooks34, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

July 2012

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Battle of Peachtree Creek has been reverted.
Your edit here to Battle of Peachtree Creek was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://friendsoftanyardcreekpark.webs.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Atlanta in the American Civil War
added links pointing to Vicksburg, Confederate, Grant Park, Industrial and Fox Theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Iranian history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanta in the American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provost. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864) (July 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Sulfurboy (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Hooks34, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864)

[edit]

Has been resubmitted with some addition. I have been working on expanding the article on "Atlanta in the American Civil War". In the article I included special order 39 as part of the article. That was before I found out about the category for "American Civil War documents". Since S.O. 39 is included in another article, it does not appear in the category list, so I thought it would be helpful to others if I placed S.O. 64 as a separate article. Hope the additional info I added will improve the article enough. If accepted, I will update "Atlanta in the American Civil War / Occupation of Atlanta (Sept 3 – Nov 15, 1864)" to point to the new article.

Thanks for you help.

On the subject of Special Field Orders - While they are Quotations, the Quotation template does not really work for them. Is there a better way to handle them? See: http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar&cc=moawar&idno=waro0076&node=waro0076%3A4&view=image&seq=803&size=100 For how S.O. 64 is formatted in the Official record.

Thanks again

Reference errors on 17 July

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864) has been accepted

[edit]
Sherman’s Special Field Orders, No. 64 (series 1864), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atlanta in the American Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fulton County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of Atlanta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Lowe. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Hooks34. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing of edits / 5th Tennessee Infantry ≠ 5th Confederate Infantry

[edit]

Hey Hooks34,

I see you´re editing about the civil war, and as I´m a fellow enthusiast I thank you for that. However I´m afraid you´re mistaking the identity of units which is why I, again, undid your edits on Chickamauga Confederate order of battle‎. The 5th Tennessee Infantry is not the 5th Confederate Infantry and the links you show, both those from the NPS and from the ORs, make that pretty clear. The ORs show both the 5th Tennessee and the 5th Confederate present at Chickamauga - even on the same page; but in different corps. The 5th TN was commanded by Lamb, as shown by both, and consolidated with the 4th TN, as shown by both. Likewise the 3rd TN was not the 3rd Confederate, and again both units were present at Chickamauga in different corps. Just for the records, that NPS says Confederate Tennessee Troops means simply that, Confederate units from Tennessee, and doesn´t mean anything for the actual name. Instead the 3rd Confederate had been the 18th Arkansas (Marmadukes), documents about it are on the wiki page, too. And the 5th Confederate that consolidated with Marmadukes had been the 2nd Tennessee (Walker's). I know it isn´t easy with the naming and renaming, but looking at the commanding officers helps. So please continue with your work but be careful with the Confederate designation. ...GELongstreet (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GELongstreet,

Actually, my information came from Jim Ogden, chief historian at the Chickamauga Battlefield. My question to him was because of the unit marker for the 3rd & 5th Confederate Tennessee Infantry Marker on Battleline road. The marker was placed on the Battlefield in 1898. There appear to be two 3rd regiments from Tennessee. Jim explained that "Following the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call on the non-seceded states, including Tennessee, for troops to suppress the insurrection then existing in the Deep South states, many Southern independence minded Tennesseans frustrated by the reluctance of the majority of the white males age 21 and greater in the state to secede, or even, then, declare independence, tendered their services to the new Confederacy, both individually, in companies, and, eventually, even in regiments. With hostilities begun, in need of troops, the Confederacy accepted many of these offers and as it became clearer day by day that Tennessee was probably going to at least declare independence and probably then seek admission to the Confederate States of America, accepted the organization of companies of Tennesseans into regiments, designating them.........1st Tennessee Infantry (commonly identified as Turney's, a regiment which will fight in the Eastern Theater throughout the war), 2nd Tennessee Infantry (early in the war usually distinctively identified as Bate's), 3rd Tennessee Infantry (usually identified as Vaughn's, which first serves in Virginia, then in Mississippi, and then in SW Virginia and upper East Tennessee), etc". Jim goes on to say "There are lot of other twists and turns to the organization of Tennessee units for the War for Southern Independence..........Knox Walker's 2nd Tennessee is at Chickamauga............it is the 5th Confederate in Polk's Brigade.............Hill's 35th Tennessee in Polk's Brigade was still frequently known at the time of Chickamauga by it's initial designation of 5th Tennessee..........etc..........but, by acknowledging and at least understanding a little this very complex process, you begin in another way to recognize just how significant the Civil War is in our nation's history."

Digging through the NPS Soldiers and Sailors Database, I found the following units listed, 3rd Regiment, Tennessee Infantry and 3rd Regiment, Tennessee Infantry (Clack's), showing two 3rd regiments from TN.

I did look at the OR's and tried to research this further, but it gets very confusing. The big question here is, when the marker was created in 1898, why does it say:

"Tennessee 3rd and 5th Confederate Regt's. Infty. Polk's Brigade Cleburne's Division Before sundown September 20, 1863"


I am currently trying to document all of the tablets/markers/monument on the Chickamauga Battlefield, so, Wiki is not my main focus right now, so I'll leave it to you to try and figure all this out. Bottom line here is, I'm not sure that what is in wiki is correct on this point.

The following are listed as killed in OR 287, Capt. W. J. Morris, Capt. George Moore, of Company H, and Capt. James [H.] Beard. Maybe you can use these names as a base of further research. Good Luck - Byron

  • The answer to your "why does it say ..." is: It is wrong, or at least created in a way to be understood wrong. First it says "Tennessee" and then it says "3rd and 5th Confederate Regiments Inf.". The second part is correct but the Tennessee in front is wrong as only one of those regiments was a Tennessee unit. The brigade markers have it right again: Polk's Brigade marker says 3rd and 5th Confederate as it should. Likewise Strahl's Brigade marker says 4th and 5th Tennessee as it should; which is your 5th Tennessee (Lamb's). It really is a mess with those double namings of Tennessee units, and Tennessee is not the only one ... e.g. Arkansas isn´t much better in that aspect. But it is just error-prone and not impossible with quite some work having been put into it here on wiki, too, which makes me already pretty sure about that. By the way if you need any help in your project or are generally interested to discuss about the civil war with other enthusiasts I can only recommend to take a look at civilwartalk.com. Regards ...GELongstreet (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you may be correct, that the marker (MT-1379) is wrong, or confusing at the least.

I did find this web site, of course, it may also be wrong 3rd Regiment, Tennessee Infantry (Confederate). It states: "Recorded as 3rd (Vaughn's) Tennessee Infantry Regiment, PACS. Also called 3rd Confederate Infantry." This is in line with what Jim Ogden said "3rd Tennessee Infantry (usually identified as Vaughn's, which first serves in Virginia, then in Mississippi, and then in SW Virginia and upper East Tennessee), etc"

If I followed what you said, -- " only one of those regiments was a Tennessee unit" --. So if the 3rd is an AR Regiment, that means the 5th would be the TN regiment. Did I understand your train of though there?

But, then you say that " Likewise Strahl's Brigade marker says 4th and 5th Tennessee as it should; which is your 5th Tennessee (Lamb's)". So now we have two 5th Tennessean Regiments on the Battlefield, one under Polk and the other under Strahl.


I took a look at the index for OR Volume XXX, Chapter XLII, Part 2. The Confederate Honor Roll for the Battle starts on page 533. The 3rd & 5th Confederate is on page 542 [1], interestingly, this is part of the Tennessee Troops (see page 540). It does show the Companies the men served in, but not the regiment. Of course, none of this proves that the 3rd Confederate was from Tennessee, but begs the question of why the OR list the 3-5 with the Tennessee troops and not the Arkansas Troops. Maybe it is as simple as the commander, J.A. Smith was from TN (commander of the 5th Confederate).

I would be interested (but don't plan to do the work) in getting the Muster Rolls of some of the men we know were there (those listed as Killed, those listed in the Honor Roll and of J.A Smith).

There are also Georgia Regiments listed as Georgia/Confederate, but this is a Cavalry Regiment.

Do you have any primary sources that say the 3rd Confederate at Chickamauga was actually the 18th AR? I've referred all this back to Jim through one of my contacts (so don't hold you breath) to see if he agrees with the 3rd Confederate being the 18th Arkansas Infantry Regiment.

  • I think I have. Marmaduke's 18th Arkansas became the 3rd Confederate by order of the Adjutant and Inspector-General's Office dated January 31, 1862. Following that date you´ll find several mentions of the 3rd in conjunction with officers of the original unit within the ORs; e.g. Marmaduke himself in Shaver's report of Shiloh. The best and direct of those is the battle report of Col. James A. Smith who commanded the 3rd-5th Confederate at Chickamauga itself. In it he mentions several officers including a M.H. Dixon. Captain Mumford H. Dixon commanded Company H of the 18th (Marmaduke's) Arkansas, which then became Company E when the regiment became the 3rd Confederate (he´d temporarily command the 3rd-5th later). ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was able to find a reference to Colonel Marmaduke commanding the 3rd Confederate. (Volume 7 page 904, Hindman's 1st Brigade). I also saw a Brig. Gen. J. S. Marmaduke commanding a brigade (Vol 10, part 1, page 788). Is this the same Marmaduke? One of the regiments under BG Marmaduke is the 3rd Confederate. The 16th AR also appears on page 789 in Gates’ Brigade.

Do you know where the “order of the Adjutant and Inspector-General's Office dated January 31, 1862” is??

I need to move on, but I still have a few loose ends I’d like to figure out, but I’ll worry with that another day. I’ll see what Jim has to say and maybe add a few comments about the 3 & 5 Confederate marker at Chickamauga.

I’ve documents documented 496 monuments at Chickamauga so far. Thanks for the feedback. -- Byron

I wanted to just say thank you again. This definitely sent me off on a learning experience I was not expecting. Even though it got me off track of what I intended to get accomplished is weekend, I learned some new stuff and you even saved me some work (but then created more). It may not have appeared that I had already decided to back my changes out before you did, but I was planning to, no really.

Now that I know that the Special Order is off in Vol. 52, I see where the reference to it is on the page to 18th AR-Marmaduke. The formation for the 5th and 10th Confederates are also in the same volume. Looking at the “List of Tennessee Confederate Civil War units", the 40th TN does say it was renamed the 5th Confederate. This probably should contain a citation so someone else does not wonder where it came from. I have not looked to see if there are any Wiki pages for the other units mentioned in the 3 ORs in volume 52.

Confederate Infantry Units Listed in OR Vol 52 - 1, 2, 3, 5 and 10. (Hooks34 (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Hooks34. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Hooks34. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hooks34&oldid=869712578"