Talk:Jackson's Valley campaign

message: I have reverted the large-scale formatting change recently edited by "Civil Engineer III." I have written a number of these campaign summary articles and they are all in a similar style. The reason that third level subheadings are not used for battle descriptions in these articles is that it makes the table of contents unruly for large campaigns and the intent is that the battle descriptions are very brief; thus, having separate section headers is overkill. I would like to be able to revert only that portion of the many changes that CEIII has been making in my articles, but that is quite inconvenient. I would recommend that people who would like to make changes in well-developed articles contact the original authors and discuss their intentions rather than plowing in and making widespread changes without notice. As an aside, the gratuitous adding and subtracting of blank lines causes enormous difficulty in determining what substantive changes are being made, due to faulty version control software at Wikipedia, so I would ask you to avoid those wherever possible. (I really wonder why people find it necessary to make changes that will have no visible effects on the article.) Hal Jespersen 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: point well taken; will comply. however, they are not your articles. Civil Engineer III 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I now understand the philosophy of what is being accomplished and it makes sense. It just didn't seem to match some other styles I've seen in WP, but I don't guess that means much at this point; it is more important probably that there is consistency within one topic than consistency throughout the entire database, which is an impossibility. While I may not agree with some of the choices made (such as abbreviating military rank) I certainly don't have a problem with it. BTW, I do like your indent and outdent battle sequence, now that I step back and look at it. Civil Engineer III 15:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reverted formatting change 

message: Why does Shenandoah Valley Campaign link to the 1864 campaign? It seems it should be the 1862, which is more famous. Jehorn (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. But rather than simply changing the link, we'll need to examine which articles link to it and fix them first. I'll work on this soon. Thanks for pointing it out. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I have corrected all of the links and redirected Shenandoah Valley Campaign. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shenandoah Valley Campaign

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Jackson's Valley Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/american_civil_war/
*Added  tag to http://www.bibliobase.com/history/readerscomp/civwar/html/cw_000106_entries.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050409012500/http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm to http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bycampgn.htm#East62
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified