lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Battle of Cedar Mountain

message: I was previously asked to provide a source for my edits. Most of the stuff I added (such as the Union casualty rates) comes from a book called "Civil War Generalship: The Art of Command", which among other things, includes a chapter on Cedar Mountain. 208.101.138.245 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Citations from books usually include page numbers. Can you provide for each addition?  Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I think I have cleaned all of the citations, although I had to add a couple of additional books from my library. As I have said before, your changes would be made most efficiently if you included the citations parenthetically in conjunction with the text you are adding. I can help you format these additions correctly. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The Sketch of the Battle of Cedar Run is practically unreadable. Most of the text is very difficult to read and the image itself is not at all clear. i.e.The lines that (attempt to) depict troop movement are almost useless. Image should be upgraded or removed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Map dysfunctional
Talk:Battle of Cloyd's Mountain

message: *I've undone the edit by 216.222.140.245 on Jan 7th, 2009.  None of the cited sources, nor additional external sources I've searched, provide any information whatsoever that the Confederates "tricked" the Union into thinking the New River Bridge was not destroyed.  One source states that the Union burnt the entire wooden structure of the bridge, but did not have the explosives needed to destroy the metal piers, which they had to leave intact.  Thus the CS was able to rebuild the bridge relatively quickly (within a couple weeks) by replacing the wooden structure.  The mission of the Union was fulfilled - the bridge was destroyed.  The fact that the CS was able to rebuild the bridge does not mean the destruction of the bridge was a failure.  The Union also destroyed several other bridges on the rail line as well.  --Dan East (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Battle of Dranesville

message: The CWSAC Report Update citation link is broken. This citation needs to be updated or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybear08 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Links have been updated. Mojoworker (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  CWSAC Report Update citation
Talk:Battle of Eltham's Landing

message: I find it interesting that the Infobox says the result of this battle was inconclusive. The Union lost 3 times as many men, did not achieve their objective and were pushed back to their landing place. The Confederates managed to pass the area virtually unscathed (which was their goal in this battle). With those facts, I should think this would be considered a tactical and strategic win for the Confederates. Thoughts? TadgStirkland401 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results Inconclusive?
Talk:Dhobitalao

message: a confluence of 6 roads, and what they might be ? 
* 1) Kalbadevi Road, 
* 2) Mahatma Gandhi Road (Fashion Street), 
* 3) Apollo Bunder Road? Going towards western railway tracks (towards Maharishi Karve Road?) with that structure in between.
* 4) Jagannath Shanker Sheth Road. Going towards Girgaon.
* 5) Going towards Crawford Market with Small Cause Court, 
* 6) Mahapalika Marg, going towards CST, Xavier's, Rangbhavan.
* Is GT Hospital = Gokuldas Tejpal Hospital?
Npindia 01:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dhobitalao has not been renamed. The chowk has. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

message: Lake, that disappeared is referred in Tanks of Bombay. Npindia 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing tank
Talk:The Wings of the Dove

message: The paragraph about this phrase is snarky ("thankfully short"), full of irrelevant detail (who is this "Rev. Thomas Bradbury"?), and ends with an unsupported generalization ("[The phrase] was generally quite familiar to the scripturally literate reader of James' day."). I am removing the entire paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TravisBrown (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "She has turned her face to the wall." 

message: The introductory statement says that the novel is "about Milly Teale" but I would argue that that's not true at *all.*  The novel is clearly about Kate Croy and Merton Densher.  Specifically it is about the "ethical sin" they commit when they start out to try to seduce Milly Teale in order to get her money; and the guilt and other consequences in the aftermath of that behavior.  To fail to get that is to fail to understand the novel.  I honestly feel that this is pretty much "beyond opinion," I'm sure there must be dozens of references to whole discussions about the point of the novel and the focus will be on the couple involved and the moral consequence of their behavior.  The "Milly Teale" character is clearly a "device" used by James to focus attention on that behavior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.248.241 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like most of it is not referenced so anyone can change it. Thanks for posting, I'll keep a watch on it, but probably won't get to it in the near-term. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro statement
Talk:Croupier (film)

message: The movie summary for this entry is rather odd -- it stops describing the movie about ten minutes into it. --72.202.150.92 05:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry cut short? 
Talk:Battle of Globe Tavern

message: Since the whole point of the Petersburg siege was severing of the Confederate's railroad supply, it seems to me that the map should show the railroads.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard (talk • contribs) 15:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  map the railroads 
Talk:Battle of Kelly's Ford

message: Overall, this page is pretty good. There could be some improvements. The most important is to include more inline citations. A few sources from the internet wouldn't hurt since most interested readers will go to the referred websites for more information. More diagrams and pictures are needed- look at Battle of the Hydaspes River for an example- whats needed is pictures of the battlefield, especially if they aid understanding of the battle, as well as diagrams showing the tactics and movement of forces. A map of the battle location is also needed. Internal Wikipedia links also need to be added. Paragraphs could use a bit of cleanup to improve readability- there are a few sentences that are out of place and will need to be rearranged. This article has potential and with a few improvements, will easily get a B-class, and a few more, and GA class is also possible. Good luck. Sniperz11talk|edits 06:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]]
Talk:First Battle of Kernstown

message: Ensured that the article is within project scope, tagged for task forces, and assessed for class. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008]] 

message: The First Battle of Kernstown map reflects the presence of the 32nd Virginia Infantry Regiment (32 VA) behind the stone wall on Sandy Ridge. This appears to be a typographical error, as the 32nd Virginia was not present at the First battle of Kernstown (or any of the Valley Campaign of 1862, for that matter.) The correct designation for the unit shown on the map is the 33rd Virginia Infantry Regiment (33 VA), which was part of Garnett's First Infantry (Stonewall) Brigade, engaged at Kernstown, along with the 2nd, 4th, and 27th Virginia Infantry regiments. Note that all four of these regiments (should) appear on the map twice, denoting the shift of the battle action from Pritchard's Hill to Sandy Ridge during the afternoon. Fcfprivateer (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Correction: 

message: Does anyone object to this reformat? I think the appearance is a bit more usable than the wikitable layout and it will allow the separate Order of Battle pages to be deleted. Hungrydog55 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orders of Battle:
Talk:Battle of Lewis's Farm

message: I was trying to help this page out when I ran across numerous disagreements, mainly pertaining to casualties.
*www2.cr.nps.gov/abpp/battles/va085.htm (I had to use google's cache on this link)
*http://www.mycivilwar.com/battles/650329.htm
The previous two are particularly off each other's accounts.
The following link might help a lot in the writing of this article:
*http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9904E6DF143FEE3ABC4A53DFB166838B699FDE&oref=slogin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kampfers (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cited casualties from four sources. The mycivilwar.com site is so far out of the mainstream on this that I'd discount it. It doesn't cite any sources for the data. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major source disagreements 

message: Seagrave, Ronald, Dinwiddie County, Virginia: A Brief History. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2012. -2. p. 72. Retrieved November 20, 2013. This source copies this article as it existed in 2011, before the publication date of the book. I am working on a revision of the article but will not use this as a source because it does not appear to be an independent source but merely a repetition of the earlier information in this article. Donner60 (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusable source 

message: I plan to reduce the length of the introduction and of the Background section, cutting some of the sub-sections entirely. I shold be able to do this soon. I want to be careful in particular not to spoil the footnote formatting when some are eliminated so I don't feel I can just chop off some paragraphs and sentences without giving the edits a little more careful consideration. Donner60 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly needs a lot of culling. As far as I know, the footnote formatting looks after itself when cites are removed. Valetude (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions planned 
Talk:Manassas Station Operations

message: A key part of this was a Union brigade of the Army of the Potomac was rushed forward from Washington and was badly handled by Jackson's men.  This influenced McClellan to slowly move his troops to assist Pope as it made him worry that sending them forward piecemeal would lead to further types of actions.  This meant that the unification of the two Union armies was further delayed.
: Well, you are welcome to edit the article responsibly. Remember to include citations from secondary sources for any opinions or analyses of the battle. And please remember to sign your Talk page comments using four tildes. Hal Jespersen 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key to Confederate Victory

message: I recommend the article's title be changed to Battle of Manassas Station Operations to get rid of the abbreviation in the title or optionally, Battle of Manassas Station. Comments?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  article move
Talk:Battle of Salem Church

message: Casualties and losses: 4,611 and 4,935? According to Sears - 1523 and 674 (P. 385). Muhranoff (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties and losses 
Talk:Battle of McDowell

message: The text of this article is virtually verbatim from the public domain NPS source cited in the References, which is a problem according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. I have added the appropriate citations, but a general rewrite is in order. I will put this on my to do list, but other assistance in solicited in the meantime. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And 11 years later, it has been rewritten. Hog Farm (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Article source

message: I have done a similar thing here that I just did to First Kernstown, viz., placing the orders of battle directly on the main page, meaning we can delete the separate OOB pages. If no one objects, I will tag those for removal in a few days. (BTW, no objected when I deleted the Kernstown OOBs, so I assume everyone's on board with this change.) 
Hungrydog55 (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing forces 

message: I have reverted the movement of the orders of battle into the main page, as has been contested at several other pages.  See Talk:Battle_of_Wilson%27s_Creek#Opposing_forces for a similar discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposing forces
Talk:Battle of Namozine Church

message: Short, requires wikification. Carom 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Great article, and a good job inserting the in-line citations! Points for improvement:
* I suggest an infobox. See the Battle of Gettysburg for an example.
* I also suggest inserting map-coordinates of the church.
* Shorten the headings; or, break up the sections with a sub-section or two, like so:    === sub-section heading ===
Boneyard90 (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 2010 Assessment
Talk:First Battle of Petersburg

message: It looks like both articles are about the same battle. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with merge proposal, and I would suggest that the lack of discussion here demonstrates a failure to support a merge. I'll be removing the merge tag unless a discussion emerges here to affect my position: The battle has it's own battle description at CWSAC, which is normally the ACW task force's standard reference. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the merge proposal. However, please make sure that the resulting article name remains First Battle of Petersburg, not the obscure nickname used for the other article. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since both people who have weighed in on this support the merger and there hasn't been any further discussion, I have redirected the other article to this one. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge articles

message: The chart shows that the South lost 40 and the North 80 in the battle, but the text shows it reversed. Which is right? Bogomir Kovacs (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. (The text is right.) Thanks for catching the error. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Lost How Many? 

message: cf extract from Wp article on H.A. Wise : "His brigade defended Petersburg and was credited with saving the city at the First Battle of Petersburg and to an extent at the Second Battle of Petersburg". Thanks for your advice, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is probably an overstatement, but since it is expressed as an opinion, it should be the cited opinion of a secondary source. Wise was in command of the Petersburg defense in the first battle, but his men retreated from the first Union assault. Beauregard brought in reinforcements from Richmond that saved the day. In the second battle, Wise's brigade successfully defended a portion of the Dimmock line, so they certainly would not receive sole credit. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did [[Henry A. Wise]] "save Petersburg" ?
Talk:Second Battle of Petersburg

message: Seriously? The Union forces were charged with capturing Petersburg, and failed to do it for three days before Lee got there with the Army of Northern Virginia, and lost almost three times as many men in the process; the casualty numbers are very similar to Fredericksburg, only worse for the Union than even that battle was. Plus, they had a massive numerical advantage even on the final day of the battle. This was clearly a Confederate victory. 2606:A000:89C6:9300:20E:8EFF:FE51:ABE0 (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconclusive?
Talk:Battle of Port Republic

message: The text of this article is virtually verbatim from the public domain NPS source cited in the References, which is a problem according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. I have added the appropriate citations, but a general rewrite is in order. I will put this on my to do list, but other assistance in solicited in the meantime. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article source 

message: Port Republic lacks a page of its own.  It ain't a ghost town.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.166.21 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PR article?
Talk:Second Battle of Ream's Station

message: Is the term [Reams's] actually used in historical texts? Can it be referenced? If the name of the town is [Reams], and station names are usually in the possessive form, shouldn't it be written as [Reams' Station]?  Boneyard90 (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possessive form? 

message: Where do the "First Battle" and "Second Battle" names come from?  And per question of 10 years ago, should it be Ream's, Reams', Reams's, or just Reams?  Most of the links don't go anywhere that says much. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for names?
Talk:Maroubra, New South Wales

message: Are any of the edits from 141.168.4.112 worth keeping? The stuff about "only niggas live there" and the misspelling of "accommodation" should obviously be dropped, and unfortunately this silliness casts doubt on the otherwise reasonable-looking sections about "Dudley's Emporium" and "Stockland Mall Maroubra". Can a local please confirm whether these paragraphs are real or bogus, and if needed update the article accordingly? -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Are they, as this says, an Anglo-Saxon gang? I had a look at their page and clearly some members are islander. What gives?
No,the bra boys are extremely multi-cultural,and maroubra is 1 of the most multi-cultural suburbs in Australia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.117.103 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bra Boys

message: Worthy of being a section on the Maroubra page. Gusfriend (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Magic Point]] into [[Maroubra, New South Wales]] 

message: Maroubra is in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs. The article about South-Eastern Sydney has been nominated for deletion and merger into the main Eastern Suburbs page, as it appears that so-called South Eastern Sydney is at best an unofficial subregion of the Eastern Suburbs. Daceyvillain (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Suburbs
Template talk:Infobox tornado outbreak

message: Please will someone make the duration parameter optional, so that, for single-tornado events like Birmingham Tornado (UK), where no value is entered, the field and its footnote do not appear (and so that the second footnote is renumbered accordingly; or, say, dagger and tilde symbols used instead of numbering). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make 'duration' optional 

message: Right now, it seems like (see e.g. Mid-April 2012 tornado outbreak) people put the injuries in the "total fatalities" field, which doesn't really make sense.  There should probably be a separate injuries field, or a combined casualties one. Superm401 - Talk 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Injuries field, or rename total fatalities to casualties
Talk:Open (sport)

message: How does one enter an open? list of open tournaments? What are the other types of tournaments? When did this type become famous? Dwarf Kirlston 23:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for Content

message: Isn't it the case, that people from other countries may enter national open championships? For example when it's Finnish Open Championships, people from Sweden or other neighbouring countries may participate. --90.191.166.161 (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  National "open championships"
Talk:Hard-Ons

message: I think that Someone should make a disambig page for Hard-Ons. I searched for HARDONS, not Hard-Ons!!--64.12.116.10 00:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try searching for Hardon, which redirects to erection. -- Longhair 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Battle of Yellow Tavern

message: I don't understand how one could say that Sheridan's raid was an "unqualified success."  Sheridan burned needed supplies and rescued some prisoners, but that was not his goal.  Indeed:
* Despite having three times the number of troops, Sheridan failed to defeat Stuart's forces and was forced to cede the field.  
* Stuart's death was incidental rather than intentional and came only after the tide of battle had turned decisively in favor of the Confederate forces. 
* Sheridan's performance was not sufficient as to convince contemporary or future commanders of the value of mobile forces operating independently of the main body; even as late as the Battle of France, the notion of tank formations (the inheritors of the cavalry tradition) moving on their own as decisive elements of battle was heretical.
Given these factors, I think it more justifiable to characterize Sheridan's raid as incidentally successful in that it resulted in the death of Stuart, and important in that it further ground down the already weakened Confederate cavalry.  But it is not a testament to Sheridan's ability except when contrasted with the amazingly poor performance of many of his contemporaries. Jsamans (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten it. Let us know if the revised text is satisfactory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unqualified success?
Talk:Battle of Sailor's Creek

message: I would like to update the name of this article to be Battle of Sailor's Creek. I have updated the article to include a lot of information that evaluates the name of the battle at the time versus some current US government names. Any objections? Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has objected to my proposal in two weeks, I am going to try to implement this change. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle name

message: Upon seeing the survivors streaming along the road, Lee exclaimed in front of Major General William Mahone, "My God, has the army dissolved?"
:Was he referring to prisoners or deserters? Valetude (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Remnants of the routed troops that were able to escape becoming prisoners without necessarily being part of a formation. When retreating without order this can happen. Most battles would produce a number of those anyway, many to find back into their lines over the next hours or days, thus essentially being scattered but not becoming deserters. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Survivors' 

message: I tweaked the article with... The next day, 4/7/1865, General Grant sent his first letter to Gen. Lee asking for the surrender of his army. Two days later, Lee would surrender at Appomattox Court House. 73.85.202.215 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  4/7/1865 Grant Sent 1st Letter To Lee Asking For Surrender