User talk:Hartfelt

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Redirection pages
You can create these by clicking on the #R button above the edit box, and typing the name of the destination in the highlighted space that appears. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Helpme
My new article "Ellen Ewing Sherman" (posted yesterday and improved today) does not seem to appear in reponse to Google searches for "Ellen Ewing Sherman." Earlier today, it did appear in such Google searches. Can you please tell me what has gone wrong? There is no incentive to develop articles if they are invisible to the world. Hartfelt (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - it takes a while for Google to "crawl" the web. It should appear in a few days time.  Micro    c h i p    08  18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to attempting something on William T. Sherman
May I help? BusterD (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I got your message. I suspect a few senior editors may question your sourcing and exact wording, but it's news to me. Good luck, and if you need help, click on my talk link and post a new message. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember to sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ). BusterD (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The recent Marszalek endorsement sounds pretty authoritative to me... BusterD (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As a Featured article, this page is watched and monitored by many experienced users, some of whom built the page themselves. Expect some of those users to approach you about your wording, and be prepared to accept some of their arguments. Your sourcing sounds like something in which a frequent page watcher would be interested. Continue to edit boldly, even if people disagree with you, but try to remain genuinely nice and kind to people. It's the right thing to do, it doesn't hurt your appearance, and you may actually learn something new. Everyone wins if we keep it civil. Have fun! BusterD (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've created a template out of your live page navbox
Make your edits on template space, not on the main page itself. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that you reference your source on the template's talk page, but not in the title. I've used the common syntax for names of items with multiple variables. I'm not 100% sure page watchers want this in the page, but if they'll accept it, it needs to be constructed correctly (which it now is). BusterD (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Use a "full colon" in order to indent your comment one place. Use an asterisk (*) to make a bullet point. Use the number sign (#) to make a numbered list. The plus sign has no special use in this particular circumstance. Yes, I'm one of many who regularly watch the Sherman page. When I saw what you were doing, I merely copied your work, pasted it into template namespace, checked for last minute changes, then posted it. Took me four or five edits. I don't disagree with your arguments, I'm just playing devils advocate, based on experience. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Have fun. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not experiencing what you're describing. When I click back, the template stays open. I've tried it in two browsers. BusterD (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dalton battles
Hal, You make a valid point about consensus names of battles that had not occurred to me (though perhaps it was belatedly beginning to dawn on me as I did some additional Google work). So, as you suggested, I have changed the page about August 1864 back to "Second Battle of Dalton," but have still tried to add info to the disambiguation page "Battle of Dalton." BTW, on a different subject, I have noticed your excellent maps in the Sherman article. But did he take Atlanta on Sept 2, instead of Sept 1? It is my understanding that Hood evacuated on Sept 1, and federal forces entered on Sept 2. Hartfelt (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my little yellow box is a bit ambiguous about what happened, but I'll fix the map in the next few days. Thanks for the correction (and the compliment!). Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thomas edits
Hello, Hal. I don't understand why you reverted my edits re Thomas, which seem appropriate to me. Basically, one edit tried to make the page look better graphically. The other calls attn to a tribute that Sherman wrote about Thomas -- in the memoriam section. The addition is relevant and, I would think would be of interest to those studying Thomas, esp those who think Sherman was unfair to him. Sherman's point was that Thomas is more deserving of admiration than Robert E. Lee. Anyway, I don't want to be obstreporous, but would appreciate enlightenment as to what's wrong with the edits you reverted. Hartfelt (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (I hope that first word in the greeting was a typo. :-)) Sorry about that. I saw that someone had taken an image tag and buried it in the middle of a paragraph, splitting the paragraph in an inappropriate place, so I figured it was a run-of-the-mill vandal or inexperienced user and did not notice the sentence that was added later in the paragraph. I have corrected the problem. You may want to fiddle with the footnote. I strongly dislike the use of external links buried inside the main text of an article and always put them into footnotes, but it was unclear exactly why you are pointing to a Google book in conjunction with the article in some magazine. Why isn't the citation to the article sufficient? Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, Hal. Thank you for your response. (1) Yes, I did mean to say "hello" and not to be obnoxious in any way. (2) I appreciate your substantive response. (3) It seems to me that the live link to Google Books is good (fine in the footnote) because it allows people to look at the article itself and see what Sherman actually had to say. Much more useful, it seems to me, than just a citation to such an old article which most people would never track down. BTW, I don't really understand how the talk function works, but I assume you will see this. Again, thanks for the dialogue and apologies for my typo. Hartfelt (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, this back-and-forth posting is one of the ways to communicate. Another is via email, which I find quite convenient; I have a yellow link at the top of my user and talk pages. The reason that I am confused about the Google link is that it does not point to the article in question, it points to a book about Sherman that mentions the article. It would probably be more effective for you to selectively quote from the article (assuming you have access to it) and then have a simple citation to the article, rather than going through the indirect link of the text of the book. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, another comm method is to do everything in one user's talk page and use the Talkback template to ping each other. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hal, I have made an edit to the Thomas page, footnote 8, in response to your observation. I hope it will clear up the confusion I created. That item on Google Books reproduces the entirety of Sherman's 1877 article from North American Review. Hartfelt (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (Usually we use indents to indicate who is typing what. Your text above has no indent, mine one indent. We don't progressively add indents.) Okay, I figured it out, although the reference to another magazine article as the first page of the appendix had me confused. An alternative link to the original magazine article is http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/moa/sgml/moa-idx?notisid=ABQ7578-0144-64 . I still think it would be preferable to say that Sherman wrote an article that had the following key points with some brief quotations, rather than simply saying Sherman wrote an article about Thomas. I am sure that Sherman's writings include a lot of references to Thomas, so the reader might question what is notable about this particular link or what kind of comparison he's making. (You might say, well the reader can just click the link to find out, but I think that Wikipedia articles should be relatively self-contained. Imagine reading this article on a cell phone browser--something I do somewhat frequently--or in a printed version of Wikipedia. The external reference would be completely useless without context.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Should Sherman page be semi-protected?
Hal: I have long wondered if the Sherman page should be semi-locked, to avoid the large amount of vandalism. I posted this question on the Sherman page discussion, but no one ever responded. I notice that the Lincoln and Grant pages are semi-locked. What do you think? Has this ever been considered in the past? (I have no idea how to semi-lock or even how to propose it formally but I thought that you might.) Hartfelt (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one think that every Wikipedia page should be semi-protected, but mine remains a minority view. :-) Check out WP:PP for procedures. I have never been involved in such a request. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Halleck edits
Hi. The text you changed in the Halleck article is supported by the footnotes listed. My style guide has an explanation of how to modify footnoted text: User:Hlj/CWediting. Please make adjustments accordingly. (This is a different case from the Grant article you're working on because that one currently has very sparse citations.) And I'd like to see a specific cite for the assertion that Grant considered it a form of arrest. (I also think you're underplaying Lincoln's role in Halleck's decision to restore Grant after Donelson, but will await your footnoting to see.)

BTW, in Grant, footnote 16 includes "However, Halleck restored Grant to command before learning of Smith's injury." which is an assertion that should be cited with a secondary source, not merely stated to refute the other source in the footnote. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, Hal. I will try to look at the points you have raised. The reason I doubt the Lincoln-intervention point (which is popular) is that Halleck twice told Grant to get ready to take the field before Lincoln queried Halleck about Grant.  So, it seems pretty clear to me that Halleck had already decided to restore Grant to field command before Lincoln was heard from.  Hartfelt (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hal, I have provided additional footnote support for my revisions to the paragraph with the Gott and Nevin citations. I have reviewed Gott's text but don't have access to Nevin.


 * Anyway, Gott overstates things and is superficial in his treatment. He starts with the wrong date for Grant's relief (March 2; really March 4).  Grant's relief was not total, he was left in his overall post as commander of the District of West Tennessee but told to turn the field expedition command over to Charles F. Smith.  Grant was not in virtual arrest (as Gott asserts) -- he continued to function, and Smith looked to him for orders.  The story that Lincoln prodded Halleck to restore Grant is popular, but before receiving Lincoln's inquiry, Halleck had told Grant once and perhaps twice to prepare to take the field command.  Therefore, the importance of Lincoln's inquiry in getting Grant restored to field command is entirely uncertain; it was moot if Halleck had already made this decision on his own and therefore should be discussed in more tentative terms than Gott uses.  That point is all the more true because Grant had been left in overall command in the first place, contrary to Gott, so it is quite likely that Halleck never intended his field-command order to be permanent.


 * So, I hope the foregoing satisfies your concerns about that paragraph. If not, please advise.(BTW, before I edited it, the paragraph incorrectly asserted that Grant was relieved on two separate occasions -- there was only one such action by Halleck at this time.)  Hartfelt (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A main premise of Wikipedia editing is that we do not research primary source documents (such as the ORs) and come to our own conclusions. This is called original research. We report the opinions of secondary sources--professional historians who weigh all the primary sources. If we don't agree with a secondary source's conclusion (or challenge that source's use of primary sources, such as misreporting dates, etc.), we balance it with other secondary sources, not our own opinions.

If you don't like Gott, Woodworth in Nothing But Victory (142) says "Lorenzo Thomas telegraphed Halleck demanding a full report on exactly what it was that Grant has done wrong. It was a gilt-edged presidential invitation to put up or shut up. Halleck apparently got wind of it a few days before Thomas issued the directive. Old Brains lost no time in slithering out of the way." McFeely's biography of Grant (109-10) makes a strong connection with the Lincoln/Washburne influence. So do Smith's biography (177-78) and Catton's Grant Moves South (206). Presumably all of these authors have read the ORs and have come to different conclusions than you did. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hal, Thanks very much for your quick response and for your info. I am satsified that I have much improved what was in the Halleck article before (e.g., removing the error about two relief orders and clarifying the overall context) even if I am wrong on the narrow Lincoln point.  On that point, look at the slippery language those authors use -- Halleck mysteriously got wind of Lincoln's desires before he heard from Lincoln?  How exactly did that happen, especially in such a short time frame?  Anyway, if you believe a change should be made on Lincoln's influence, I can only suggest that you go ahead and make the change you consider appropriate, as I have no idea what should be said.  Thanks again.  (When I have a chance, I will try to look at some other secondary sources.  But I don't see why we must bow to secondary sources as gospel when, for example, Stephen Ambrose says something that simply cannot be true (Halleck sent Grant back into the field (on March 13) because of Smith's March 12 leg injury (which was only reported in a slow-moving letter sent March 14)).  Cheers, and my compliments on your vigilance and many contributions.  Hartfelt (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason we "bow to secondary sources" is the policy in WP:PSTS. No individual secondary would be considered "gospel" if there are conflicting secondary sources extant. So the burden on us as WP editors is to find the universe of reliable secondary sources and present them in a way to achieve WP:NPOV. But we don't offer primary sources to refute secondary. I agree on Ambrose probably being wrong on Smith and we should just omit his opinion because we know the preponderance of secondary sources don't say this. (It would only be necessary to address him if some other editor raised the issue, although it's doubtful that would ever happen.)

If you are done editing, I'll take a shot at it, although I have other tasks lined up before that. And thanks for the compliments. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee
Hi, Hartfelt. I left you a message here in regards to Ed's assessment of the article, hopefully it will help you out. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I replied there as well. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied here. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  21:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AotT
I'm done with the MOS editing. It wasn't even close to as mediocre as I thought; the many massive maps threw me off. :-) If I were you, I'd list it at the Wikipedia-wide peer review or the Military history WikiProject's peer review; otherwise, you can nominate it for "Good article" status here or for Milhist's A-class rating here. For what I can tell, the article looks to be very well-researched; great work! Cheers, — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  20:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hartfelt. To create the page for a Military History peer review, just go here; it has step by step instructions for how to fill out the request. I already added the link for you on the talk page (since the project template can be a little confusing), but you can write up the nomination here. Then you'll just add the request (that's explained in the link I provided above) to the nominations page, and people can begin to review the article. If you have other questions, just ask Ed or I, and we'll be glad to help. Parsecboy (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that peer reviews generally last about a month, although I've seen them last longer than that. They're longer than other reviews in order to give as much time as possible for many people to review and make suggestions, but you are definitely allowed to nominate the article for "Good Article" status at the same time (I've done that in the past). You follow almost the same steps to nominate an article for "Good Article" as you did for the peer review, although its on a different page. You just add to the article talk page and then add #  ~ at the bottom of this list. An editor will create the review page him/herself (which should be located here; you can add empty articles to your watchlist, so that when they're created, you'll see it). I hope that helps you out! Parsecboy (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't able to help you before; I was checking WP right before I had to run. :-) If you have any more questions, ask away! — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hartfelt: This is in response to your message on my talk page. I will copy the entire exchange here, just in case you are not watching my talk page for my reply.


 * PKK: As you may have noticed, I have continued working pretty hard on the AOT article but really do hope to stop now. If you are willing, I would really appreciate your looking it over again and letting me have any reactions. Is it plausible to advance this as a possible featured article, or is GA status the appropriate goal? Also, many thanks, again, for the elbow grease you have already put in. (As you will see, I have followed your short-title suggestion in the notes. Have also added some more references, using the template you installed.) Hartfelt (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not the person to ask about FA, or even A-class articles. I have contributed to precisely one (count them, one) GA article, and zero A or better. Equally to the point, I have never taken part in either an A or FA review. What this means is that I do not know what they look for in those lofty ratings. As I read the stated criteria, Army of the Tennessee seems to do everything they require, so I tend to say go for it. On the other hand, I keep reading complaints that articles are failed for obscure Manual of Style issues that I am not familiar with, and have no desire to become familiar with. I suppose that the best argument I can give for making the attempt is that you will not know unless you try; but then you will have another round of editing, as a new set of critics will come into the game. If you are prepared for that, you have my best wishes. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

PKKloeppel (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Am now a certified TPS'er Hartfelt, just go for it. :-) You have nothing to lose by nominating it at WP:GAN or WP:MHR; the worst that can happen is that it fails but the article improves due to the review (...but I don't think it'd fail.) — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

UK, WWI, BTW, TBH.
No bad feelings, I can assure you. I must say, it's been hardwork expanding the article, and it was always going to end up a bit patchy, so I do appreciate all the comments (most of the stuff wasn't even written by me). The difficulty is quite frankly knowing where to stop. For example I have, in front of me now, Beckett's book. Over 600 pages, 40 lines per page, at least 10 words per line = 240,000 words, bits of which are interesting to different people. We have 60KB at the moment - in other words, 60,000 characters, or 25 pages in Beckett's style (I think). Hence the defensiveness over the issue of expanding the remit! Anyhow, thanks for the look over, it is appreciated - particularly the "as someone unfamiliar with the topic" points. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Shiloh map
Hi, Hal. Was just looking at your Shiloh map, and it occurred to me that perhaps it could be improved by showing Savannah, Corinth, and the Mississippi-Alabama border and state names. In case you haven't noticed, I have linked three of your maps (Atlanta, March to Sea, Carolinas campaign) into the work I've been doing on the Army of the Tennessee article. Hartfelt (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick (slick technology?). If you don't mind another suggestion, two of the red lines are labeled with a commander's name but one is not. Causes me to wonder who led the third column, so that might be a worthwhile addition. Hartfelt (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One last thought. Might be worth noting St. Louis as Halleck HQ. Hartfelt (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Another "last thought," about scale. As you know, it was 9 miles from Savannah to Pittsburg Landing and 20 or more miles from PL to Corinth. As it stands now, the map gives a different impression; that PL was closer to Corinth than to Savannah. (I notice that Henry and Donelson appropriately appear close together; maybe too close?) Anyway, am very impressed by your maps and your ability to edit them. Hartfelt (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but please try to give me your suggestions all at once. I've now done 3 updates to this map today and it's not quite as easy as editing text. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Map of Carolina Campaign
Thanks for the suggestions. I am getting ready for a trip and won't be able to attend to these changes for a few weeks. (I'm in the middle of big upgrades to the Richmond-Petersburg and Appomattox Campaigns, text and maps.) If you'd like to expedite things, print the map, annotate it in pencil or Paint graphics with proposed changes, and scan/email it back to me. Use the email connection on my User page. Thanks, Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I
The British Government offered them asylum but George V vetoed it, for the fear of spreading the communist revolution     to the UK. He obviously did not realise they would be murdered and apparently regretted it till he died. The European  Royal Families were very close during this time many being grandsons / granddaughters  etc of Queen Victoria    --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The PM but as they had to honour treaties it was very much expected. It goes to parliament afterwards but unless the PM is very unpopular being a majority government its easily voted through. Very much like Tony Blair did for the second gulf war --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added 184 members of parliament were in the forces by 1915, they did not have to resign but they were of course under orders of their senior officers. Important ? remember MP's do not have any power as such (unless in the cabinet) --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee -- A-Class Review
Hal, Knowing that you have contributed in the past to the Army of the Tennessee page as an ditor, I wanted to let you know that I have now listed it for an A-Class review. As it stands now, the article uses four or your marvelous maps. Also, you asked that I send specific suggestions for the Carolinas Campaign map, which I will try to do before long. Cheers, Hartfelt (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I think you've done quite an admirable job on the article. My comments: find and remove a few of the lingering date links (full and year-only); try to replace OR primary source cites with secondary; my personal opinion is that using a small point size for References doesn't look good for the bibliography style you've chosen; I think you've put too much emphasis on the naming issue, which could have been handled mostly in footnotes; in the lead section, you should reword "It appears that ..." and "This article also discusses ..." to be more encyclopedic in tone. All minor points. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck with your review. It is not something I have ever done voluntarily for my articles. (A few of my articles have been rated good or featured, but it was because someone else nominated them. The review process was quite a pain in the neck.) My attitude is that if someone wants to improve the quality of an article to his specifications, he can make the changes himself. :-))

Re: AOT comment
"I am not 100% certain I understand the disambiguation problem you mention. If you mean that some of the wikilinks are to disambiguation pages, rather than to the intended subject page, I will try to find them. May I ask how you know that such mis-links exist and that there are three of them?" This is in fact the problem exactly, there are three links in the article that go to disambiguous pages rather than to actual pages. The reason I know that these exist is that they register on the toolbox. Each A-class review has a small square labeled "Toolbox" which is located to the right of the header and this box contains three external links. Those links check for (respectively) any disambiguous links in the A-class article, the number of contributions editors have made to the article, and the number and status of the external links in the article. If you return to the A-class review page and click the external link titled "disambig links" you should see which terms lead to the links, and from there it should be a simple matter of correcting them to point to the articles they should point to rather than a directory page. As for the external links, one of the links in the external link checker came back highlighted in green, which implies the possibility of subtle redirecting; my concern here was just to ensure that all links worked since I know from experiences that when links redirect they sometimes lose there original encyclopedic value. I'll be checking back later today to review and update my comments, so you should expect to see more from me on your A-class review later today. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it to this section of your talk page. Do you see it now? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its probably a link you can not find; most of us - having worked on a particular article for so long - tend to stop reading whats actually there and instead mentally read what we believe we wrote, and that makes finding links like this hard. I will take a look for it later, but right now I am getting set to leave for school. TomStar81 (Talk)
 * I spotted your comments at The ed17's talk page. Ed left something of importance out: you need to remember that most of our contributors are on summer vacation or winter break (in the southern hemisphere), and may not be anywhere near a computer, and that those students among us are either gearing up for finals or working on getting back into school next semester (or in my case, working on summer school). In this case, its really your timing that is problematic, not the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field
I have made changes to the Commanders section. Would the edits resolve the pertinent concens in the MILHIST peer review? Note: I am still looking for a photo in this section. This is the best I found, which I think adds variety to the article and shows the perceived imagery of the masters of the two houses. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive an answer from its photographer and I could not find another image of it on the web. Jappalang (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I shifted the "Richard effectively lost" paragraph not to Engagement, but to Legacy. The context is to set up for the chivalry certain historians think Richard has displayed, as well as legacy of the battle.  I refrained from adding the stained glass window at the moment (although the photographer has changed the license)... whether the design is copyrighted has become an issue that has to be worked out.  Jappalang (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for your Carolinas Campaign map
Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, I have a very full schedule coming up and won't get to these super quickly. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have put a new version up. I didn't take all your suggestions because I changed my map source from Eicher's Longest Night to Bradley's Battle of Bentonville. Unfortunately, the space available around Bentonville-Goldsboro-Raleigh makes it difficult to show really accurate movements. Let me know if you have other suggestions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Oh, by the way. Since you seem to have an interest in this area, the Carolinas Campaign article is one that needs a lot of updating and I doubt that it will be at the top of my radar for many months. If you do tackle it, note that I wrote it originally in a style that I now consider obsolete -- terse battle descriptions that are actually verbatim copies of the CWSAC descriptions, aligned in single, indented paragraphs. I have been slowly rewriting the campaign articles using a more expansive, cited style. Examples are Gettysburg Campaign and Jackson's Valley Campaign. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by adding an underscore to the File: name in your article, but with or without, the files are equivalent. In fact, the WP convention is to not carry the underscores into the article; they're used only in the physical file names to meet old UNIX/Web naming conventions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes changing images on the Commons requires you to reset your page cache (shift-click the Refresh button on your browser) to see the new version. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Atlanta Campaign map
Hal: I noticed last night that your Atlanta Campaign map has the wrong date for Kenmesaw Mountain. Should be June 27, not June 22. May eventually have some other comments. Hartfelt (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That map is by Andrei Nacu, the other prolific ACW mapster. Since it is an SVG file you could theoretically modify it yourself. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The Shiloh article
Hi, Hal. I saw the note you left about the Shiloh article and will try to provide secondary sources when I can. Probably won't be soon due to other commitments. Hope things are going well at your end. Hartfelt (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am doing fine, thanks, and hurrying is never an issue. :-) I am currently hip deep in arguments about the assessment of Gettysburg as a "decisive victory." I would much rather be writing new articles and improving them that I would arguing endlessly about relatively superficial details of this type. Some peoples' attention stops at the end of the information box in these articles. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, Hope all's well at your end. I have posted the Shiloh-related info you asked for, on the Shiloh discussion page. Separately, have you noticed the latest addition to the Sherman page ("The Devil's Incarnate")? Seems a blight on the article to me, but I don't feel I have enough objectivity to undo the edit. Hartfelt (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I'm doing fine, enjoying myself at a great West Coast Civil War conference this weekend. After I return, I will start taking a look at the citations you provided, thanks. On Sherman, I put a comment into the Talk page on this subject, but that is one article that I do not attempt to police, so I was not in the mood to deal with a potential reversion war. Hal Jespersen (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee again
Hi, Hartfelt:
 * This is a voice out of the past. I remember that when you were just starting on this article, I suggested that you use the template for your biography, and you objected that its output presented fields (specifically the date) in a non-traditional order. I agreed, but we had to use the template because it was the only one available.
 * Since that time, another template has been prepared,, which corrects this problem. (It does not do some things that the original does, but the differences, as I read the descriptions, are esoteric.) To make a long story short, I have replaced  by  everywhere it appears. I hope this is to your liking; if you have changed your mind since that time, feel free to revert my changes.
 * By the way, let me congratulate you for writing an excellent article. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sherman article
Hal: Have you noticed the new first paragraph of the WT Sherman article -- what seems to me to b e over the top commentary on Indian wars? What can/should be done? Thanks for any thoughts. Hartfelt (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have not really been monitoring the Sherman article because I consider it well developed and well maintained by others (currently, you). I actually know very little about Sherman's postbellum career, so cannot provide direct assistance, but I will point out that the lead section (the paragraphs prior to the table of contents) are intended to be a summary of the following article. If the new material is a correct summarization, about all you can do is ensure that the proper weight is given to it in comparison to the rest of the article. If it is not supported by the cited material in the main body, feel free to reword or remove it. I will start watching the article more closely in case you get into edit war difficulties. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought your message on the Talk page was to the point. I must say that the sentence in the lead that says "responsible for the U.S. Army conduct" is rather anodyne in comparison to the material in Postbellum service section. A couple of other comments about a superficial look at the article: that postbellum section should probably include "Indian Wars" in its title; there are three sections regarding his writings and it would make sense to cluster them together; the See also section should immediately precede the References. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant
Thanks for all your edits on the USG page! {Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}

Grant article
Hal: I am curious whether you are supportive of the total overhaul of the Grant page effectuated today. My own reaction, while hasty and superficial, is negative. I think I may turn away from this page for good and hope Sherman doesn't get the same treatment. Hartfelt (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not looked at today's change in detail, although I was helping the guy with some of his earlier summary work. In principle, I think it is a reasonable idea to separate Grant's Civil War career from his presidency. In practice, I am sorry to say that the editor is really pretty sloppy, but it is simply too much work to try to keep up with him. I told him that I was going to withdraw my frequent participation in the Grant editing. In my 6.5 years of Wikipedia work, I usually have had the luxury of working on articles without people jumping into them too deeply. In those cases where they do, I often just fade away--I don't have the time or patience to make dueling wholesale changes back and forth. This means that some of the most prominent articles--Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, William T. Sherman, American Civil War--no longer carry much of my stamp at all. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help Hartfelt. I appreciate all that Hal has done for the articles.  My intentions were to trim down the article.  I also had to get more sources in the article, including McFeely, Brooks, and Smith.  Hal is an excellent writer and if I interfered in any way I apoligize. My only goal is to get the USG bio in GA status. {Cmguy777 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Thanks for your valuable help. I kept the edits from the previous USG bio in the talk page.  The revision, although signifigant, was meant mainly to affect the civil war section.  I originally put the controversies into a separate section, however, it is best to incorporate them into the article sections.  I believe your edits have really improved the narration.  I have used Catton, McFeely, and Smith as sources to get GA status and have put the references in a breviated "Harvard" style.  I was first drawn into the Grant article because someone mentioned an issue about antisemitism.  This issue must be mentioned, however, I believe it is best to incorporate it into the article sections add to the flow of the article. If the current USG bio Civil War section becomes a separate article, it could be expanded.  The only issue is that the USG bio Civil War section would have to reduced.  For now, I am just letting this edit settle in.  I personally believe the article looks good.  I put in the Battle photos to break up the text and add illustrative context.  I have also tried to put in the article how Lincoln and Grant designed the "total war" plans, rather then just Grant.  Grant initially wanted to attack North Carolina with 60,000 troops, however, Lincoln made Grant's target Lee's Army. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}

That was a good edit on Halleck. It is best if someone is criticized to take a neutral point of view. My mistake. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)}


 * Hello Harfelt. Rjensen is a good editor and recently contributed to the "Initial Commissions" section.  He is currently traveling but plans to look at and possibly edit more of the article.  Rjensen was intrumental in helping me with making the Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant article.  I have been looking through the older USG Civil War section on the talk page to see if anything was missed.  I know more should be done on the cigar smoking and possibly have its own section. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)}

Vote needed
Votes are needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page, (1st section) Gwillhickers (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman Featured article review
I have nominated William Tecumseh Sherman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)