Well, the immediate problem was the unclosed includonly tag; with that removed, the rest should be visible. There seems to be something quirky with some of the conditional statements (should the title actually be defaulting to "Videos"?), but that's a minor issue. Cheers! Kirill 13:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, please see the Talk page re the above. Regards, bigpad (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Please note you've a reply waiting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You recently deleted an addition ([1]) to the Hannibal article pertaining to the nationality of Hannibal's mother. I did not make this addition nor do I know if the addition is correct but it is quite plausible that Hamilar's wife was Iberian as he was involved in conducting military operations in Iberia and it was common practice at the time to strengthen military alliances through marriages. Perhaps the alleged factoid should be reverted with a "citation needed" tag? If no one comes up with a reliable citation then the factoid could be removed. Davidzuccaro (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Danke für die Blumen für den Seriations-Artikel, hatte jetzt lange keine Zeit mehr, mich darum zu kümmern. Deshalb erst jetzt meine Rückmeldung auf Ihre / Deine Frage - ich gestehe, dass ich sie nicht so ganz verstehe "mathematics of the multidimensional graphs derived from a seriation"??? Korrespondenzanalyse wird doch auf der entsprechenden Wikipedia-Seite erklärt, nicht gerade genial, aber wenn, dann gehören die mathematischen Erklärungen wohl dort hin - oder habe ich das nicht richtig verstanden? Archy33 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I sent them an email, hoping for at least some kind of response. I'm trying to gauge their interests; if they were to email me back I could easily tell someone with more experience than I do (I am also trying to use the fact that I'm from Spain). It seems, though, as if my only hope is to visit the archives the next time I go to Spain (possibly during the summer). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review so far, and thanks also for the info you left on my talk-page. I've been away from editing for a few days, but hopefully tomorrow will be able to incorporate this into the article. Thanks again, Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. PS: Check out the enhanced map of the Roman empire under Hadrian (executed by Andrei Nacu under my direction): as well as an improved colour scheme and greater legibility, it now includes Roman road names (where known), Roman puppet-states, and the names of barbarian tribal nations, colour-coded for linguistic group. The advantage is that it is all in one image, so you get the complete picture: in other words, the equivalent of a fold-out map, not a map-book. It is designed to be the definitive online map of the Roman empire (I challenge you to find a better one on the Internet!) NB: There a few corrections still pending, so this is not the final version EraNavigator (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I see you can not be contacted by email. I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding the situation on the talk page of Horses in warfare. With the edition of a couple of new editors, who seem to favor completely changing the article into something else, things have become very hostile. I hope you are still planning to work on the article this weekend. I look forward to seeing your changes. - Josette (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Check out my complete upgrade of Carpi (Dacian tribe). I want to do more on the archaeology, but can you grant it a B as it stands? PS: Also check out my proposal (and add your comment) for a title change for the article Equestrian order on its discussion page EraNavigator (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fayssal
You were critical of the lead in horses in warfare. Could you write an expanded lead for crossbow. I've been heavily involved in editing this article and want to abstain from summarizing it in fear of POV issues. Some fresh eyes are therefor rather welcome. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I have addressed your points in Carpi (Dacian tribe). I have also added a para on the 4th c. in the History and 3 Notes, which please read. Also read, if you have time, the Niculescu paper on interpretation of archaeological data by Romanian scholars, which I have linked to the article. I think this should be enough for a B, although I plan more work on the archaeology. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to review another Greco-Persian battle! I'm away for a week from tomorrow, so I won't be making any corrections to the article during that time. However, I will address any issues as quickly as possible when I get back.
Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
hi, thanks for apreciation. I made them simply using paint and microsoft word. I would like to make more maps, tell me if there is need of map in any article. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
and i will edit maps to show the capm sites in March, as i will be busy in febuary.
Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out (and please grade) my total upgrade of Bastarnae article. PS: Check out final version of Andrei Nacu's brilliant map (now includes gold and silver mines) Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I've added appropriate references. Now the rest of the article needs some! Actually, trebuchet and all the mechanical artillery pages could use a lot of work.Megalophias (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments at the GA review. Can you please let me know whether I have addressed your concerns or if there is something additional that you're looking for? Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I've dealt with your tags. PS: regarding the gold and silver deposits, we've only shown the major mining areas, not very single mine. The data is from the Barrington Atlas of the Greek & Roman World (2000) by far the best and most up-to-date classical atlas (have you seen it?) EraNavigator (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Check out (and please respond to) my response to your comment on renaming this article (discussion page of Equestrian order) EraNavigator (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your offer to teach other users to make maps, but unfortunately I don't have time for this. However, if you personally have any questions or you need help with some maps, I would be glad to give you a hand, depending on how much time I can spare.
Andrei nacu (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I know that this is a trivial issue, but I don't see the logic of your stance (or that of the opposer to the move). You say the rules require the article's title to reflect the usual term: and I have proved to you that in English-language encyclopedias, the usual term is "equites". In addition, the title must not be ambiguous i.e. it must not be a term that could refer to other subjects. "Equestrian order", unless qualified by "Roman", is ambiguous because it can refer to knightly orders other than the Roman ones. The modern sources I used for the article use variously the terms "equites", "knights", "equestrians" and "equestrian order". There is no preferred term. But in relation to what the title should be this is irrelevant - obviuosly "equestrian order" or "equestrians" is understood to mean "Roman equestrians" in the context of a book about a Roman subject. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for agreeing to review another Greco-Persian War article. As to your questions:
Thanks again MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
You left a message at the talk page of Mike Godwin (legal counsel for Wikimedia Foundation): [2] implying that he was vandalously moving pages. You may want to check your sources and retract that. He has not edited since February 3rd, and has only edited and actual article last September: [3]. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The toolbox on the review page seems to be part of the new A-class review system. It's not my creation! I was quite surprised when it appeared, but it's very useful! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your GA review of Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps, I am happy that you liked it. I therefore assume that it did pass GA, but the "tag" on the article's talk page still has it as if it is a candidate (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
What have you done with Alexander?! Sorry, but my program is a bit, how can I say it, erratic! I leave for Brussels, and I have a lot of preparations. I don't know what I will find there, and I won't have my books with me. Only what I'll buy there and the Internet. I am willing to help, but I don't want to give promises I won't keep. I also wanted to bring with WP:GREECE Greek War of Independence to FA status, but ...
I'll therefore join the task, but I don't promise I'll manage to be as consistent and reliable as I demand from myself for such huge tasks, and I also don't know If I'll manage to tolerate the frustration I'm sure the fanatics and trolls of all kind will cause!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could be kind enough to do the review on Hispanics in the United States Navy "GA" nomination. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if yours is a typical result. I just used Yahoo (which uses Google search) and I got Late Roman army top of the page with the picture alongside. I agree Roman army needs a rewrite, but I don't have the time or inclination. Why don't you do it? PS: Check out the new, detailed reconstruction of the order of battle at Battle of Strasbourg, done by Andrei with my consultancy. EraNavigator (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Certainly. That said, I must apologize in advance because I will be unable to do a great deal with regards to copyediting until next week at the earliest. If it isn't a matter of utmost urgency, I'm more than willing to help. Cam (Chat) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the comments on this article so far. I will get round to addressing them this weekend. My e-mail address for the copy of Lazenby is: cornishmilitia@hotmail.com. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Chamal talk 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've replied. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
From my reading of the source, the things I listed must be the raw chemicals pre-catalysis, because they liquids up until about 120 degrees celsius, and they can't be the finished product. I think it is consistent. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
hi, Thanks for the award.
Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I may not have time to conduct a review for a while, but I'll get in touch with Tony anyway and see if we can sort something out. All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wandalstouring. Sorry, but I don't have dates for the Alexander victory coins at this point. The metal is silver. I'll keep you posted when I manage to find the dates (which, if I remember well were c.324 BCE anyway, just before the death of Alexander). Cheers PHG (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, fixed the link. cmadler (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have already replied on that issue in the FAC page. In short, for reasons of clarity of structure, as well as because this is a format followed by most historical articles (and books), I prefer to keep the current version. Also, aside from that issue, do any of your other concerns stand, or have they been resolved? If so, please strike them out so that there is better overview. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Reviewers Award | |
In appreciation of a very thorough FAC review & criticism, which led to a considerable improvement of the Byzantine navy article. With the best regards, Constantine ✍ 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
Hi Wandalstouring, I've split the 'subsequent fighting' section of the article per your comments in the ACR and was wondering if you have any further comments? thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Check out and please grade my newly revamped Tacfarinas article. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Point taken, but it is clear from Sallust that Numidian foot was mainly light infantry (i.e. no metal armour) and I have so modified the text.EraNavigator (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe all 5 issues have been dealt with including the associated references. Please look them over and if you see anything additional that needs to be done, let us know.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that Tacfarinas is included in the Wiki Biography project only. Should it notform part of MilitaryHistory project also? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my typos in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty. It's currently a GAC; any suggestions on how to improve the article?--Pericles of AthensTalk 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, silk is mentioned many times, but if you look at the "Clothing and cuisine" section, it says in the last paragraph:
For the poor, hemp was the common item used to make clothing, while the rich could afford silk clothes.[279] Silk clothes found in Han tombs include padded robes, double-layered robes, single-layered robes, single-layered skirts, shoes, socks, and mittens.[276] The wealthy also wore fox and badger furs, wild duck plumes, and slippers with inlaid leather or silk lining; those of more modest means could wear wool and ferret skins.[280] Large bamboo-matted suitcases found in Han tombs contained clothes and luxury items such as patterned fabric and embroidery, common silk, damask and brocade, and the leno (or gauze) weave, all with rich colors and designs.[276] The Han also had tools for ironing clothes.[267]
I hope that addresses this concern. As for Mozi, you make an excellent point about his absence in the philosophy sub-sections. I'll see what I can find, since the sources I have on hand really don't address Mozi's influence (or lack thereof) on Han-era thought specifically. Do you know of any sources off the top of your head which deal with this particular topic? If so, I hope there are good Chinese philosophy sources at my university library (I'm sure they have a good amount; I've already checked out a significant amount of Chinese history and art sources from there).--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
By doing a quick search for "Mozi" at GMU's library catalogue, I found these results:
Have you ever read these specific works? If so, I'd like to know how relevant they are to Han-era philosophical developments.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing Battle of Glenmama. Since I'm always trying to improve on my articles, I'm wondering if you could give any pointers as to the "obvious omissions or inaccuracies" in the article. Thanks. :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Terribly sorry, I had reviewed the article below that one, and when I removed the request I accidentally left behind that notice. Have fun reviewing. Cool3 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for letting me know that you're reviewing homosexual transsexual. I'm a bit concerned that you say that for concerns about the article to be taken seriously, someone should be a GA reviewer, as in Wikipedia:RGA#About_the_process, it says that people who have significantly contributed to an article (as Jokestress and Hfarmer both have) should refrain from reviewing it. I'm also concerned that you're advocating removing the citations from the lead - in WP:LEADCITE (part of WP:LEAD, it says that if anything really controversial is said in the lead, (and I gather that the entire article is controversial) it still needs a citation. Good luck with reviewing the article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now polished up the Tacfarinas article. Could you please read it through again and tell me whether it could qualify for GA status? (PS: And the same for Bastarnae) Regards EraNavigator (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you review the Midshipman article again? I've made all the modifications you requested so hopefully its GA now. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
hi, i have created some maps for Battle of Cannae. I have tried my bast to make it simpler, so that every reader can easily understand them.
This map details the arrangement of the carthagian and roman armies.
deep formation of Roman army and there weak cavalry power when compaired to carthagians.
onthe other hand this map shows formation of Hannibal. center of the army having wings of punic african cavalry that will remian un-engaged in the battle untill hannibals decisive orders.
the cavalry division on left wing is double the size of the cavalry division on the right wing.
Hannibal knowing the fact that his troops could not withstand the tremendous farward thrust and momentum of the Roman infantry, deployed his infantry in semi circular form as the roman advanced. this absorbed the momentum, and rendered the deep deployment of the roman commander, useless. meanwhile as planned, hannibal's cavalry of the wings charged against the respective roman wing cavalries. during all this action, punic african infantry deployed on the flanks of hannible's center remian un-engaged.
meanwhile carthagian cavalry routed the roman cavalry.
the difference is of horse-shoe formation, which traped the romans at cannae and inflicted upon them heavy casualties. at zama, it is not clear from article whether scipio used that formation or not, probably he didn't used it, and its obvious when one see the casualties, which are not as high as cannae.
Mohammad Adil (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the Sources section of Tacfarinas a little and reworded it to make it more neutral. It seems to me that if a mediocre article such as hastati can get GA, then this article must be worth at least that. You will not find a more comprehensive and detailed account anywhere, let alone the internet.EraNavigator (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Have you tried out a reading of a spoken article so far? Im in process of recording two articles to get exposure on long articles. Need any help?
AshLin (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You voiced an opinion on Fountain of Time's quality at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fountain of Time. I am now attempting to promote it to WP:FAC. Feel free to comment on its merits for this higher level of quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made the changes you wanted as far as I could figure. However the repeated sentence form concern, while I sympathize is something I can't see how to change, and not be biased. I wrote about this in detail on the review page. But basically writing "so and so (said,wrote,states) such and such" is always neutral. Writing "so and so(reports, found, opined, instulted transsexuals by writing... etc. ad nauseum) such and such" is almost never really neutral. Neutral writing about a controversial sensitive and emotionally charged topic is always going to look bland IMHO.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi these are the new maps for battle of cannae.
Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wandalstouring, user:the ed17 suggested you might be able to help on an edgy query. I've just prodded a probable hoax and then looked through the authors other edits I came upon Lajinaa, a spear from circa 1800. Googling it gets several Wikipedia derived refs plus stuff about a Spanish spear shaped knife or paring knife.. Any thoughts? PS re Massachusetts & the EU, you'd be very welcome, provided you learn that Tea is best not made with harbourfulls of cold salt water.. ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now dealt with your fact tags in Bastarnae. Will you nominate the latter and Tacfarinas for GA class? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wandalstouring. I don't want to be a pest, but I was wondering if you had any more comments/suggestions for Moltke class battlecruiser, which you had reviewed for GA last week. I think I've addressed your concerns, but I wanted to make sure. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not intend to make any major textual or layout changes. Each assertion in the article has a source, or even two to back it up. The article is better now due to the GA review (even if it is not GA material in your opinion, it's certainly better for having the review.) Though I fear Jokestress will never be happy with any article that does not cater to her point of view. She alleges and asserts things about me which have no basis in fact. The closest I come to having a COI is that I live in Chicago, and have met many of the people associated with the book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen." That's it, that's all. My personal opinion of this term is that it's main drawback is that people who are not familliar with it can be confused by it. My basic point is I am not planning any structural or major textual changes at this time. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to step on your process, I interpreted your edit as removing the prod, which imo should have led to the article death in a few days had it stayed. As it happens, I've moved it to AFD, so events will proceed apace. It has no redeeming features, nothing in the history of Arctic exploration supports it and no sources are readily available. It's just someone having some fun, using the names of their next-door neighbours. I'll be quite pleased to be proven wrong! Franamax (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I will try to work on the style in those sentences a bit and make them less repetitive. It will be hard to do that without introducing real or implied bias. i.e. I have to be careful to differentiate between, the hypothsizeing of the researchers, their actual research findings, and their pure unscientific opinion. But when to do what? You see to Jokestress if I were to write about the criticism as the unscientific more emotional opinions they are...I would be introducing bias because to her science is something special... almost magical it seems. To say something is scientific, to her seems to be to say it's fact.
You wrote that you do not understand the statement about erotic pleasure from cross dressing. You wrote that it seems they all cross dress.... That is true. The idea is that homosexual crossderssers... called drag queens in order to distinguish them from heterosexual crossdressers...cannot be sexually attracted to feminine things. Afterall they are sexually attracted to men and masculinity. What Blanchard asserts is that male transgenderism is on a spectrum from non TG to CD's DQ's and finally transsexuals. What he asserts beyond that and with great controversy is that there are really two spectra.
homosexual (Kinsey scale 5-6) males to drag queens to homosexual transsexuals.
non-homosexual males (straight, bissexual, Kinsey scale 0-4) to crossdresser (see Transvestic fetishism) to autogynephilic transsexual.
Now you can see what the real beef is. It is not the term homosexual transsexual so much, but the association to autogynephilia, and fetishism. Most activist only pay faint token lipservice to the idea that the label homosexual transsexual is insulting. Jokestress is the only one I think actually gives a damm about the insult and injury that many straight transwomen could feel due to being called "homosexual transsexuals".
Much has been said by her about what I think... I myself have been attracted to men all my life. My sexual history includes two one time stands with women and more than 100 times more sex with men. (5.9 or so on the Kinsey scale.) I was a feminine boy. When I did meet J. Michel Bailey here in Chicago a few years before the publication of The Man Who Would be Queen the character and content of our few converstions convince me he thought of me as a homosexual transsexual. (I have also just by happenstance met the people he wrote about, one is a professor at a univ I attended, the others are people I have encountered in various social situations through the years. I have no real favorites and as far as I can tell am on good terms with most if not all of them.) This all makes me think if the TS population were divided into non-homosexual and homosexual transsexuals I would be listed as a homosexual transsexual. That said I really don't put allot of stock in psychology. I personally find a neurophysical + social explanation more appealing. I think that all transsexuals have some parts of the brain that are feminized, perhaps the parts are different between homosexual and non-homosexual transsexual. That is what I really think.
I know TLDR, I made this as short as I could.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Check out new Ultimate Fate section of Bastarnae. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I am able to satisfactorily perform the tasks required of a coordinator. – Joe N 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Milhist Coordinator elections | |
I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917. |
I have expanded on the sources section so that it discusses the annals in sufficient detail. I should be able to get a start on the archaeology of the site by the end of the week. You can e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Grimhelm as necessary. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The Mietinen Young AfD led me to look at Canhistor (talk · contribs)'s other contribution, which I have dug into and taken to AfD here. I saw you had asked him for sources, but as he only ever edited on two days in Nov 2007, we probably shouldn't hold our breath waiting for a response. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
I seem to have drawn a crowd of support! |
I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC) | |
A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921. |
Is it absolutely necessary to satisfy her every complaint inorder for this to be a good article? You ask her for a criticism section and what does she give you? A well referenced thoughtful and neutral few paragraphs smartly summarizing the criticism? Or a self aggrandizing, self serving criticism section where she cast herself as the "voice of all transsexuals". Ignoreing those who don't object to the terms, she also ignored those who did, but for different philosophical reasons than her. Her purpose seemed to be to throw that up just so as to delay the article possibly having anything positive said about it (i.e. that it's merely stable) let alone declared "good". Which I understand is not guaranteed. At what point can we just say OK she is COI'd, and a tenditious editor to the point where we give her words the weight of a grain of salt, and proceeed with actual improvements to the article? At what point do we start to ignore most of what she says on this, which for her is a emotional topic?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the heads up. You should probably talk with Aryder779 (talk) too - he is currently more invested than I am in editing the Grindcore article. Cheers. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
After this futile conversation first on whether Alexander ever set foot on India, then on whether he conquered Porus, then on whether all the Graeco Roman writers were imaginative bards and hagioraphers, I started checking articles on Alexander. Starting with the battle of the Hydaspes, the article was full of these pro-Indian theories and interpretations, even presenting dubious sources, you should check too. Every possible effort has been given to minimize Alexander's exploits in favor of his enemies. Casulaties on the side of the Greeks were even presented tenfold, through a careful misquote of a very dubious source, which seems to just be some random blogger!!! I rewrote a freat bulk of Hydaspes, practically cutting away the speculations and misquotes and presenting things as Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch did. Just look at the article abbout Alexaner himself and you will see selective quotes that are obviously inserted with the sole reason to interpret Alexadner's retreat to Babylon in a way that will make them feel better about themselves. However, I have not meddled with the main article as yet. Please, see to this too, since I suspect that we will have to rewrite pieces on Alexander... GK1973 (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Guten Tag Wandalstouring! I have been engaged in expanding the Quinquereme, and since you are one of the editors most involved with it in the past, I'd like your opinion on the following idea: since the information we have on ships of this class is inherently limited, and most of what applies to the quinquereme also applies to the other polyremes (fours, sixes, etc.) perhaps it would be better to move the page to a title like "polyremes" and include all of them there. What do you think? Constantine ✍ 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons. Roger Davies talk 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thought it polite to mention that I raised you name at Talk:Hannibal. Tried to reason with him about the coin. Don't know if it'll succeed....Catiline63 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Since Im not feeling too well, and since I dont have the resources, I have placed your request here. I hope it helps. AshLin (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have left an opinion at the GA3 page. Clearly there is an ongoing dispute here so you should fail the current nomination. When some stability returns the editors can re-nominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Check out revamped Alpine regiments of the Roman auxilia. I intend to use this format, based on the geographical/ethnic origin of the units, to cover all the auxiliary regiments: with 15-20 regiments per article, some 20 articles should suffice to cover the auxilia. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
As a member of WP:MILHIST, I am quite familiar with the projet's assessment guidelines. And, I was of the opinion that this article does meet the requirements of being a B-Class article. However, after reading and re-reading the article numerous times, I now realize that you are correct and that this article should only be Start-Class. Thank you for showing me the error of my previous thinking. Cheers! --Laurinavicius (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wandalstouring,
The full reference of the book is : P. Mattar, The Mufti of Jérusalem, Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and thé Palestinian
National Movement, New York, Columbia University Press, 1988.
Thank you for your help !
Ceedjee (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Check out revamped and corrected "Alpine peoples of the Roman Empire" section of Alpine regiments of the Roman auxilia, with your fact tags dealt with (save one - I'm still looking for a Romansh ref). Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Since you were among the last he talked to I thought you should one of the first to know. He was injured in combat and sent to Fort Bragg. Me and him served together in Iraq a few years back and we are still friends. He is a senior officer so he gets to have computer access there and he just emailed me to tell me that he is asking the admin that he asked to block him to unblock him.--Sharpterov (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Wandal,
Can you take a peek at Carl Raswan and compare it to its source, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Raswan ? My German consists of a year I studied it in 1987 and so I largely relied on Babelfish and what I know of English language conventions for horse vocabulary ("Asil" Arabians are those that are desert bred, i.e. of the purest bloodlines, which in English are "purebred," not "thoroughbred," etc...). There were some things that I skipped because they just didn't translate for me, but probably contained nuances I totally missed. Anyway, I tried to do a straight translation so if you can do a comparison and fix anything I misinterpreted, I'd be EVER so grateful! Thanks (Danke)! Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Seine Schulferien verbrachte Carl Raswan mit seinem Pony häufig bei seinem Onkel Bernhard Schmidt, der im Forsthaus Kreyern im Spitzgrund die Position des Oberforstrates einnahm. Bei einem dieser Ferienaufenthalte beobachtete Carl Raswan den jungen Prinzen Ernst-Heinrich von Wettin, der mit seinem, vom Ungarischen König erworbenen, arabischen Schimmel in den Moritzburger Schlossteich ritt. Der Schimmel war vermutlich ein Shagya-Araber und Carl Raswan beobachtete, wie das Pferd sich selber in dem Spiegelbild im Wasser erkannte und damit spielte. Dieses Erlebnis wecke sein Interesse für das arabische Pferd und wurde somit zum Schlüsselerlebnis für das weitere Leben von Carl Raswan."
Thanks again. Montanabw(talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fountain of Time, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Check out and please grade the completed version of Alpine regiments of the Roman army. Also I need your assistance with a tidying-up exercise regarding these regiments. I originally started producing articles on each regiment, until I concluded that there was not sufficient data to justify separate articles. Then I lumped them together under a common name such as Alpinorum regiments, but even this didn't really work. So now I have produced this article grouping the regiments by broad geographical region (which I intend to do for the other regions too).
So we now need to delete the following articles (of which I am the sole author), whose data has been integrated into Alpine regiments of the Roman army:
Can I leave this in your capable hands? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to finish reviewing this? Looks like there's been no action on either side since the end of March. Wizardman 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, how are doing? How's the grindcore article doing? Will it reached GA status soon? Thanks. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wandalstouring. You don't seem to have responded to my last missive, on Alpine regiments of the Roman army, above. Are you busy with exams or something? Anyway, when you have some time, I would be grateful if you could grade this article. In addition, are you aware that User SADADS is planning to reorganise Battle of Strasbourg, and says he also wants to do the same for Late Roman army? I would be grateful if you could keep a close eye on his activities so that he does not end up wrecking these articles. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Wandalstouring. I notice that you haven't graded Alpine regiments of the Roman army or arranged for the deletion of the related articles that I listed above? Is this due to lack of available time or is this article not up to B standard for some reason? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The translation I have doesn't say the image we are talking about was published. The only reference(?) it has is Photo: kheirkhah.ir / Reuters. This afaik means that the rights for the picture belong to kheirkhah.ir not that it was published there. I was not able to find anything on Reuters about the picture. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the picture was published by the newspaper just because it exists in its directory. We need a source saying that it did, otherwise we are doing original research, that is we make our own conclusions instead of reading third party sources. I understand your concerns, but although the photo exists all over the internet we must be sure about our sources, conclusions etc. Under the circumstances in Iran are hard and maybe it's hard for some to not express their feelings, this is why we must be very careful about our sources and double check that they are reliable, accurate in what we use them and independent.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
So, because the sample has the same layout, you make the conclusion that its the first page. No one says "that was the first page". But if you look WP:Sources that is not what wikipedia requires and thinks as reliable. Wikipedia requires to find something which writes "that was published in that newspaper" and it is against making our own conclusions based on material we acquire (such as the screenshot). I know you probably think "ah its common logic" but wikipedia is very specific on that matter. Otherwise everyone would make "common logic" conclusions and we'll end up on documenting personal opinions instead objective views.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me give you another example from that article: Another user in that article added a source about the attacks on ISPs. The sentence said that attacks on iranian ISPs caused the internet to be off. This sentence means that the service providers had so much traffic that they (the providers) couldn't serve the people (because the attacks cause traffic). But a user concluded that because of the attacks the iranian government stopped the internet and added a source for that. These are entirely different things, although they both speak about the internet going off, the user made a mistake because he/she made a conclusion. The source was ok for another point in the article, which was about the government stopping internet access after the attacks. That is why wikipedia doesn't accept conclusions about sources, because we end up on opinions instead of facts.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
from a reader who has watched you work tirelessly all day, and contribute significantly. You very much deserve this! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, The date on the newspaper reads (yek Shanbeh, 24 Khordad 1388)=(June, 14 2009). The newspaper is evening newspaper. Regards.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope that makes it perfectly clear that you must be civil whenever making an entry on anybody's talk page. It's common knowledge that using all caps is similar to shouting and therefore very impolite. I removed your comment from my talk page because it's rude. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Wandalstouring,
With regards to, for example, Twitter as a source, the answer to the issue already exists within the policies. Reliable sources generally should be secondary sources, as much as possible. For "hot topics" or "breaking stories" such as the Iranian Protests, however, that rule can and occasionally should be ignored. As with all things issues, calm dispassionate evaluation is the best solution.
Anyway, just from looking at your comments and the amount of attention that you seem to be focusing your editing attention upon, I'm a bit worried that you may be getting caught up. If you're feeling emotional about things (which, just from my very limited observation you probably are) then it's probably a good idea to take a step back for a bit. The article will be fine, it's not going anywhere, and there are plenty of other editors (and, believe it or not, plenty who share your viewpoints!). So, relax, edit something else for a while (or nothing at all), and come back to the article after a short break.
Regards
— Ω (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Roger Davies talk 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC) |
I am significantly editing the page International Foundation for Electoral Systems and I have a Conflict of Interest, could you look at what I have done and help me figure out if it I have anything that is not NPoV. Thank you for the help in the past and I hope you can help. Thanks much SADADS (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind looking at the article again for bias and maybe assessing it? Thanks much for all of your help.SADADS (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine by me. It's already been waiting for review for a long time, so another month won't hurt. Plus, I will also be busy over the next few months, so a slow review suits me.
In addition, I would rather the article was reviewed by someone who I know will do a thorough review, and who cares about the subject.
Thanks in advance for reviewing this! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
hi, i use to create them using window xp's "paint"..... the maps of battle of yarmouk, i created using paint only. But they were (as u can compare them with battle of zama's map) were of low quality. I Then download a program called "inkscape" and believe me i have became a fan of that software, it uses vector graphics which have unlimited zoom and picture never breaks no matter how much u zoom in, it help u to create very define images. the most recent maps that i have created is that of battle of zama, but unfortunately i still haven't got time to work on that battle and paste those maps on the article with some battle descriptions. As for inkscape u can download it, its free search on google. and as for the how to create maps on it, one gotta have some "painting" skills, a concept, a perception, and a lot of time !. I learn using inkscape from video tutorials available on youtube and i would recommend that one should go there and check those videos. And finally you will learn it when u will use it ......
feel free to ask more
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
before drawing any particular map i have its image
in my mind already.... then i just open window paint and inkscape. first i draw the plain,
with all details including the info box at the upper left corner of the map then i save it,
let it be pic1. after this i open a new page in inkscape and draw armies. we in maps
represent armies with long blocks. If you star drawing these blocks in inkscape using simple
ruler u gonna end up with nothing ! so wht i have invented is a trick to make these blocks.
i simple draw a straight line using a pencil or ruler of desired length and then i go to its
properties and increase its "width" untill i get the desired width for that army whether its
infantry or cavalry. then i save it as well, let it be pic2. now open copy of pic1 in paint, save it as well and let it be pic3 (keep the original
untouch u may need it later), then open pic2 and zoom it in to adjust the size and then
"print screen" it, paste that print screen in another window piant and from there cut the
image of those infantry lines and cavalry lines and simply paste them in pic3 and save the
image in png format. you now have a raw battle map in pic3. using this pic3 as a base just
copy it and paste it to have "copypic3" (always keep original untouched !). As In paint you can
move the infantry lines and blocks easily just by selecting them by mouse, therefore i prefer
to use paint while giving final touch to the maps. when u are finish making 1st map, copy
that map and then edit it to make 2nd map, and similarly copy that 2nd map to make from it
the 3rd map, it will help u making a well balanced series of battle maps.
You can draw arrows ( that indicate maneuver of corps) from inkscape and then print screen
them and paste them in your battle map to easily adjust them according to desired position.
you can also do all this in inkscape and there will be no need for this "print screen"
stuff, the method that i have mentioned above is the one that i use, as inkscape is a heavy
software and it often hangs ur pc, so therefore to save my time i print screen images from
it to paste them in paint which is quite light and quicker software of window xp.
following r the 2 link to the video from which i learn the bases of using inkscape.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKttdNa8RTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7brq6GjaSk
they are not related to map making but they will certainly help u in understand the functions of inkscape.
i have no idea whether u have understood the method that i have mentioned above, actually
its quite difficult to learn some thing "non-verbal" through reading so i suggest u n all
those who are interested in drawing maps to just try making it "practically" because "necessity is the mother of invention" n once u will use inkscape u will evolve your own
methods, and its not difficult making them, trust me ! but yes its time consuming.
as for the research for those battle maps, yes u can search it on Google, whether u will get
some raw battle maps or will get some really good descriptions of the battle, by reading
those description, with a little understanding of maneuvers of armies u
will be able to create a very good map. and one thing that i keep in my mind while making
maps is that the good map is one which is "understandable" to all alike, even if a layman
who dont know any thing about battle, will see them, he must be able to quickly understand
that wht happned in that battle, which side maneuvered how and wht was the battle plan etc
etc .... thats the bottom line of map making.
its been a long time when u gave me list of some battles that need maps, so far i have just made map for one battle and that battle of zama, actually this battle impressed me so much that i couldnt help myself but to make its map though i am having a bit of a busy routine. Inshallah after i am done with improving battle of zama's article which is in quite a bad shape, a reader will never understand that what actually happaned in the battle and how it happned, using which strategy and tactics etc etc .... ! after that battle i will go for other battles too inshallah in late october. is there any other battle that u want me to make maps ? feel free to tell me, in late october when i will be in my "full form" to work on wikipedia, i will make them quickly.
regards...
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ping! Roger Davies talk 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)