User talk:Jacob Haller

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Fact tags
The correct usage is which produces:

Not fact. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, peer review, and project-wide collaboration.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
The January 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gothic armies
Hi

I saw that you were working on the Gothic armies article. I have a couple of tips for you since you seem fairly new: Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jordanes entire "Origins and Deeds of the Goths" is online here, you could use that as a source for some more information.
 * The article seems to be new and created by yourself. There's nothing wrong with that but you need to consider how you can tie it in with the rest of the articles on wikipedia. One of wikipedia's best features is that you can hop from one article to another via wikilinks. At the moment nothing much links to Gothic armies, you need to try and find its place in wikipedia's existing articles and put links in to it. The most obvious place to link from would be Goths - I would write a small section on Gothic military in that article, and then link to your main article at Gothic armies. At present, people are unlikely to find your article.
 * I think you need to discuss the formation of the Gothic armies, their typical military units, how they were armed, etc.
 * "Wulfila's bible translation often describes the 1st Century Roman army in 4th Century Gothic terms." - I'm not sure that this whole section is really relevant - the article should be about Gothic armies, not Roman ones.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
The February 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

fact tags added to Campaign history of the Roman military
Hi, as you can hopefully appreciate with an article of this size with this many sources, trawling through all my references searching for a cite for the sentences you have flagged as needing cites would be something of a massive undertaking and not one I have time for at the moment. Would it be satisfactory to simply substitute "Goths" for "Visigoths" in the disputed sentences? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I had recently moved Visigoth to Visigoths and was sorting though the links (still several hundred to go) hence my quick fact-tagging without much more. Yes, substituting Goths for Visigoths should do nicely. Thanks. Jacob Haller 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Aëtius (theologian)
When you mark POV issues, please indicate on the Talk page what exactly the issues are, as specified by the POV tag. I believe I have addressed your issues, but can't be sure. --Macrakis 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization by Theme or Organization by Date?
I was working on the Structural History of the Roman military and I'm concerned about issues (like tactics) which fall through the cracks between "campaign history" and "structural history." Anyway, I copied the section over to a new page titled Late Roman military. I plan to copy the appropriate section from the other articles. I suggest discussing appropriate ways to divide the history and creating new period-based articles. Jacob Haller 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this page creation. The issue you have raised is not valid, since pages covering these topics already exist at Strategy of the Roman military and Roman infantry tactics, for example - both linked in the main Roman military navbar at the top of each page. By creating this page, you are duplicating work from other articles and over-populating the category of articles on the Roman military - all the content in this article that you have created is already available in other articles. Th existing article structure is thematic (each article covers a different theme) with sections within each article covering each period - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Work to Structural History of the Roman military
Jacob, I see that you have made widespread edits to this article last night. I have unfortunately felt it necessary to revert much of your work. My reasons for doing this are: Please get in contact before performing any more such radical article overhauls on an article that is under development by another editor and in the peer review process. Thanks! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You greatly altered the structure of the article, introducing sections that are contrary tot he article's title and are covered more properly in other, existing articles
 * You removed cited quotes
 * The article is currently undergoing peer review, as noted on the talk page, and such widespreadh changes to an article are not helpful during such a process, which needs some article stability in order for comments made int he peer review to be useful
 * As per your comments at Talk:Military of ancient Rome, I'm not sure that you have fully explored or understood the existing structure of articles on ancient Rome and where certain content is most relevant.
 * I am going back over your edits, re-adding in all the content you added that is relevant to the article, but maintaining the existing structure - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right that I can't make heads or tails of the Roman Army article structure. Jacob Haller 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the substantial issues ... I read the article and found it often contradicted the most recent scholarship. I removed one quote because I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to mean. Jacob Haller 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jacob, there is no need to create an entire parallel structure for the late Roman military, when a structure is already in place for the entire Roman military. Stop making edits for a second and take a step back. The structure of the articles is very simple - it is thematic. There is an article on the Structural history (how the structure of the army changed over time), one on the campign history (the battles they fought in), one on the technological history (weapons development etc), political history, one on the strategy, one on the Roman military personal equipment, and one on the tactics. All the edits you have made can be fitted into one of these articles, there is no need to create an entire parallel structure for the late roman military you are interested in. All aspects of the late roman military are aspects of the changing face of the roman military as a whole, and should be fitted into the pre-existing articles on these subjects. For example, you were adding content to the Structural history of the Roman military on weapons and tactics - these already have existing articles, in this case technological history and tactics. If they currently cover only the weapons and tactics of the early empire, then they should simply be expanded to include information on the late empire too. This is a problem with a lot of articles on the Roman military, that there is a focus currently on early empire only, which is not representative of the entire roman military history.


 * What I am trying to say is please try and understand the existing structure and where the edits you are making should be fitting into that. You say "I have other articles which need to reference the Late Roman military (including its organization, tactics, equipment, campaigns, etc.)" - what you should do in each case is create a section by date in the relevant structural, tactics, equipment etc article and link to that section - you don't need to create brand new articles for all of these. For example, structural and campaign history already have sections on the late empire you can link to, and if the tactics, equipment, etc etc articles do not, then you need to create new sections in them for the late empire to indicate the differences. Having to link to sections within articles is perfectly standard and is not indicative that an entire new parallel article structure needs to be set up


 * You also say "I have had to write extensive sections on Roman military equipment". Why? There is already an article called Roman military personal equipment that should hold all this information. If it doesn't, then add it. Again, there are correct places for all this info you're adding, but you are currently duplicating a lot of work and ignoring the existing article structure.


 * I understand exactly where your frustration is coming from - it is true that some of the articles cover the entire roman military period and some cover only the early empire. This is not deliberate, it is a legacy issue that is due to a lot of the early editors begin interested primarily in the early empire, and writing articles as if this was representative of the entire roman military. In more recent articles, I and several other editors have restructured several of the articles to include information right from 800BC to 476 AD. However, some articles that we haven't got around to yet still focus only or predominantly on the early empire (the classic legions everyone is familiar with). This is not because this is how these articles should be, but because that's how they have been historically, and haven't been worked on since. If an article claims to be on Topic X for the entire roman military, but only holds info on the early empire, don't create a duplicate article just for the late empire, populate the existing article with info on the late empire too, and make clear when the changes occured and why.


 * If you carry on in the direciton you have been, we are going to end up with a very confusing mix of some articles on the entire period of the roman military, some on the late, and some on the early. It is far easier to comprehend as a structure (and would require far less reworking of existing articles) to continue the practice of assigning the scope of the entire roman military period from 800BC to 476 AD to each article, and editing it accordingly.


 * To sumamrise: if an article claims to be on "Roman military equipment" but only has info on early imperial roman military equipment, don't create another article called "late roman military equipment", just split the existing article into sections "republic military equipmetn", "early imperial military equipment", "late imperial military equipment" etc.


 * Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As an example, I started the article Gothic and Vandal warfare (originally Gothic armies), initially to support Battle of Adrianople. The article clearly needs to refer to Roman warfare and the Roman military. However, while it may need to refer to the Roman military from the 230s to the 550s it doesn't need to refer to the Roman military of the early Republic, etc, etc. Many battle articles might need to refer to Roman military organization in their period (i.e. the structural history article), tactics of the period (tactics), weapons (which might go in tactics, in technology (which currently focuses on civil engineering and siege warfare), or in personal equipment), etc. I'm sorry about screwing with the peer review process. Jacob Haller 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'd point to Byzantine army as a period-based subdivision of Roman military history. Jacob Haller 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacob, no probs with the peer review process, perhaps it wasn't obvious from the article that it was ongoing. I understand exactly what you are saying, but it should be possible to simply link to the relevant period sections of the existing articles on each topic. I do see the difficulty in that you want to link to an article summarising all aspects of one period, but think of the reverse - if it was sorted by date and you wanted to look at roman military tactics, you would have to again look at lots of sections of different (by period) articles. I'm not sure there is a solution really, since it doesn't make sense in my view to duplicate everything into both by-theme and by-period articles - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
The March 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
The April 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ostrogoths
If you want Ostrogoths deleted, will you please: a) place the db tag before the redirect statement and b) state what move you want carried out! "WTF? rv" is meaningless. -- RHaworth 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I was just following the instructions for requesting deletion to move the page. I wasn't sure where to explain the reason. Jacob Haller 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism
Can't help but note that the same two editors who are refusing to allow Libertarian Socialism to be restored to featured article status, given that it was improperly removed in the first place, are also the ones who insisted that "all is well and good" despite numerous problems concerning the featured article status of anarcho-capitalism. I'm happy to work on libertarian socialism as long as it takes to make it a worthy article, but how am I supposed to know what will be considered worthy in the eyes of individuals seemingly biased against it? Etcetc 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Automatic unexplained reversions are for dealing with vandalism and nothing else. If you continue to use them in editing disputes rather than actually explaining your actions with proper edit summaries, you will lose your ability to use them, or maybe just end up blocked, depending on the severity. See, on this article, I explained my edit and you didn't explain yours. Article writing isn't about revert-warring, it's about discussing and compromising. -- Cyde Weys 18:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I explained my reasons in the 2nd edit. It does no good to explain my reasons in both. Jacob Haller 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
The May 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

bot
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Communism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ^demonBot2 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 10 June 2007

anarcho-collectivism
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but unless the source specifically mentions Bakunin's collectivism it's not a real source. I have a hard time seeing why an anarcho-syndicalists would support anarcho-collectivism. That's like saying some mutualists support anarcho-capitalism, or something like that. Anarcho-syndicalists are not anarcho-collectivists. That's why they have their own title, otherwise they would be anarcho-collectivists. Illegal editor 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your previous objection was that anarcho-syndicalists oppose wages, anarcho-collectivism uses wages, ergo anarcho-syndicalism is not compatible with anarcho-collectivism. The source refutes your argument. Jacob Haller 19:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one objection, because the definition in the article said that anarcho-syndicalists want to abolish wages. That's a major reason why I couldn't fathom why anarcho-syndicalism would support anarcho-collectivism. I was just trying to get you or anyone else, to realize that something is off. But, even if anarcho-syndicalists do support wage labor that doesn't mean they support anarcho-collectivism, which is more than just that. It's also a revolutionary philosophy that advocates violence to destroy the present system. Collectivist anarchism spefically refers to the Bakunin and his followers. I believe the collectivists also supported the use of labor checks. Do anarcho-syndicalists discuss that? There are different names for different kinds of anarchism for a reason. They're not the same. Anyway, again, the source doesn't mention anarcho-collectivism. Illegal editor 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It says anarchosyndicalists want to abolish the wage system, not that anarchosyndicalists want to abolish wages, but requres clarification on that point. I've moved the Chaplin reference to an explanatory footnote to the first statement about the wage system. Is that better? Jacob Haller 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with that. I'm wondering why you changed "private ownership" to "capitalist ownership." I know that the collectivists were against both. I assume you mean non-worker ownership of a means of a production? As in owned by investors? Collectivists were againt that but also against private ownership, meaning individual ownership. Anarcho-syndicalists are opposed to private ownership of the means of production too, I'm pretty sure, not just "capitalist ownership." Illegal editor 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wargaming edits
Thanks for your note and edit. You wrote:

(Not really notable ... AFAIK, Jane's Naval Wargame and Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame did similar stuff decades before, and I know Flying Circus also did so.)

Interesting. thanks for the information. I actually was not aware of that. However, are you sure that is not notable? I'm not trying to dispute you here, I'm really asking. It seems to me that almost no game now incorporates such features, which seems to make SFB unique. I'm not familiar with the two gamnes which you mentioned. Are they still played now? I'm trying to reflect the fact that SFB may be the only one currently played which shows that type of detail.

Also, out of curiosity, re those other games, what did they incorporate? and how did they handle this? sounds interesting. thanks. --Sm8900 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, I'm not really into tactical air or tactical naval wargames, but almost all of them include similar plane-by-plane or ship-by-ship detail. Harpoon [tabletop]/Command at Sea is probably slightly more abstract than SFB. It's semi-miniature, using counters and rulers. Flying Circus, Spitfire, Richtofen's War, Air War, Flight Leader, etc. show plane-by-plane detail, with players tracking altitude, damage, and sometimes fuel (Flight Leader) or ammo (Flying Circus, most of the missile-era games). Wooden Ships & Iron Men tracks damage somewhat abstractly and Tobruk 1st Edition tracks damage and ammo for tanks (but not turret position and the other crew-by-crew details. I think there are some solitaire games (B-17, B-29 (?) in playtesting, where the players represents one aircraft crew, and Patton's Best, where the player represents one tank crew, which include even more detail. And on the larger scale, Campaign For North Africa doesn't track individual vehicles but does allow players to reorganize the battalions, transferring subordinate units from one counter to another, training units, reequipping units, etc. as long as the supplies, equipment, and time are available.


 * I've only played a few of the above. "Degree of detail" might be worth discussing in the article. I think there are basically three approaches; John Hill describes these somewhere: (1) cut out details which slow the game. Basically, small, simple, fast-playing games. (2) don't have many units, but show them in detail. (3) don't have much detail per unit, but include more units. In an operational land game, approach two might involve one unit having multiple counters (for different strengths) as in 1914 or Anzio, while approach (3) would show the next level down (divisions instead of corps, brigades or regiments instead of divisions) with each of the smaller units having only one or two steps. Obviously, games can't break the ship, the plane, or the tank into smaller units, but they can show the ship, plane, or tank in more detail, as in SFB. Thanks. Jacob Haller 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking for advice on See Also Links
I can't find the Wikipedia policy or MOS standards for what to include in/exclude from See Also sections. I'm not sure there is one. However, other editors keep adding additional See Also.

My basic position is that if X is relevant to Y, then Y should have a see also link to X; and if X is not relevant to Y, then Y should not have a see also link to X. Others seem to hold that if X is relevant to Y, and Y is not relevant to X, then X and Y should still both have links to each other. Jacob Haller 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Guide to layout is where the "See also" section is described. It, however, doesn't cover content that much other than that links that are already in the text shouldn't be repeated here.  My feeling is that in a perfect world, there would be no "See also" section at all.  Everything would be linked within the text.  Therefore, my feeling is that if A is relevant to B, but B is not relevant to A, then B shouldn't contain a link to A in a "See also" section.  In that case, A probably ought to carry a short explanation for its link to B.  Or better, remove them both, and find a way to place the link to A in the text.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
The June 2007 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Elisha ben Abuyah
Hi. You put a header at the top of Elisha ben Abuyah, but you didn't start a discussion about your POV concerns on the Talk page. Since the header refers the reader to the Talk page, and since there is a tradition of nearly 2000 years in rabbinic Judaism that Elisha was a heretic, I would appreciate if you could explain why you believe the article is WP:POV. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the person in question; I found the article in an unrelated search. But labeling anyone a heretic violates WP:NPOV. Jacob Haller 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see that. Do you know if there's been a specific discussion of this issue somewhere? Reading it might help me edit the article to be more NPOV. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know there was the discussion of Categories for Deletion:Heretics, but I'm not sure how to get to the right archive. It crops up on hundreds of different pages, in one form or another. A quick fix might state that most Jews regard him a a heretic, or his teachings as heretical.
 * It might help to distinguish between
 * Elisha be Abuyah as a person, i.e. his biography, avoiding direct statements about heresy,
 * and Elisha ben Abuyah as a good bad example in later Judaism, where he has to be "heretical" to be a good bad example, but it doesn't really matter which "heresy" he adopts. Jacob Haller 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found the discussions about deleting the Categories of Heresies and Heretics. And I agree about the article; it needs to make clear that later Judaism views him as a heretic, rather than stating as a fact that he was a heretic. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not sure how to address the issues in detail, but wanted to point them out. Jacob Haller 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

hi, something you should probably know
hallo. Vision Thing thinks I have or may have recruited you from the flag forums for the purpose of meatpuppetry on wikipedia. Respond if you want, link is up there. -- infinity  0  19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian views of Jesus POV tag
When you add a major tag to a section, especially something like pov-section that specificaly says "Please see the discussion on the talk page, you have to add an entry on the talk page, explaining specifically what issues you have with the section. This way, other editors can help fix the problems. If you don't explain what is wrong, how are we to change it? Tags that don't have talk page explanations can be removed. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 00:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Germanic Pagans
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Liftarn 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly ignored consensus and turned the disambiguation page into ... whatever that was supposed to be. I have not seen any evidence of continuity or even similarity between the three things listed. I suggest you address your concerns on the pages linked to; if you wish to expand the page as well, I suggest you outline your draft on the talk page, labelling one section for your draft and another section for criticisms. Jacob Haller 07:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken this issue to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -Zara1709 08:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

spatha
Hello!

May I ask you to write on the talk page specifications of what exactly should be dubious on marked sentences please ? That would be very helpfull for possible clarification in the future. Thank you.  R eo   ON   |   + + +  20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry, edited wrong revision, my mistake, writing this here in case you don't catch it on the talk page, which is kinda bloated. -- infinity  0  21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR
Hello, WP:OR states that analytical claims should come from secondary sources. All you are doing is adding your interpretation from primary source material, like Tucker or Bakunin. This is not allowed per Wikipedia policy. Intangible2.0 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting the policy. I am following explicit statements in six primary sources. Each of them states that anarchism opposes hierarchical authority. Bakunin goes the farthest in distinguishing different forms of authority. Jacob Haller 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reverting the Fomenko article. I was about to do it myself. I really feel that this is Wikipedia's Achilleus heel: fringe theories whose acolytes rally to defend the pages. Have you seen the sorry state of the article on the Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon? They argue for and against its authenticity as if there was any scientific support for the idea that Indians were the descendants of Israelites, with dark skin as punishment for their sins. Ridiciluous.Sponsianus 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

History of the Balkans
Please stop vandalising the History of the Balkans. If your understanding is poor, then that is a matter for you to clarify yourself, not attack the article Hxseek 00:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no vandalism, but it would be helpful if you explained your edit on the article talk page. --Ronz 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are unsure. Refer to explanatin on talk page. Then please feel free to explain your objection more clearly on the discussion page. Also feel free to acquire a dictionary to help acquiant yourself with the meaning of 'permanent'. Hxseek 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

References for Ukraine after the Russian Revolution
You added a request for references to the article Ukraine after the Russian Revolution. Can you indicate on the talk page or using fact tags which statements need citations, and elsewhere in the article?

I wrote much of the article based on the references at the bottom, and I'm glad to pull them out and add appropriate footnotes. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 22:48 Z 


 * I don't see any in-line references there. Jacob Haller 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Sabini
Thank you for stepping on List of Sabini. I stumbled upon this page while working on project Wikify (it had been tagged since December), and it needed tons of work. I'm sure it could still benefit from tons of work; I'm leaving the expert request on there. I'm dropping you a line first to thank you for separating the two Sabini I had accidentally merged together and also to tell you that there was one source I could not peg. Under the first Sabinus in authors and orators, I cannot discern what is meant by "(Suid. s. v.)". Judging by its usage on google, I'm suspecting it may be a scholarly abbreviation, but I don't remember it from my college days and I can't find it. If you know, I'd be grateful if you could illuminate. Meanwhile, I'm going to go get some fresh air. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for the work you've put in there. I'll see if I can find anything. Jacob Haller 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that "Suid." was an abbreviation for "Suda." I tracked down several other pages with the same "Suid. s.v. ..." and clarified them to "Suda, under ..." or variations thereof. Jacob Haller 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hated to leave that "Suid" hanging. :) I do appreciate your input. It's very satisfying to see a page improve like that. --Moonriddengirl 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:ASF
I know and agree. I'm interested in this and think it warrants a discussion of its own. Why don't you just take a look at the WP:ASF section and propose a rewording or suggest some changes? I'd be happy to provide my input, as I believe this really is a widely misunderstood aspect of NPOV and thereby poses a problem in and of itself which should be addressed in time. —AldeBaer 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Chaplin and Solidarity Forever
I take your point about the labor theory of property, however I think it is too narrow a concept to cover the claims of the IWW Preamble, and certainly an obscure concept. The labor theory of value is, in my opinion, more the ethical underpinning of the IWW's claim that "all the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone." And the labor theory of value is usually understood in a broader sense (by those who still take it seriously, in the face of mainstream economics' marginal utility theory).

On your question of the reference for Chaplin's return to the Catholic Church, I will make an effort to obtain his actual article itself (and not just the reference to it) from the Denver Post of Feb. 1957 to see whether it does indeed state what I have asserted. If it does, I'll change the reference directly to that. If it doesn't, and I can't find a credible reference, I'll remove the comment. Dwalls 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've received a copy of the Denver Post magazine articles from the Washington State Historical Society. Although elliptical, it strongly implies Chaplin became a Catholic.  His story is described as one of, quoting Chaplin, "a violent atheist turned Christian the hard way." Chaplin writes, "I found myself remembering the Catholic chapel at Leavenworth and the inmates who devoutly raised their eyes to my portrait of 'Fellow Worker Jesus.' . . .Here was the instrument of true solidarity, the real clue to Man's salvation, and the best weapon against totalitarianism."  There is no suggestion he was a Catholic when younger, so I withdraw the "returned to." Dwalls 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Jacob Haller 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I finally (four years later!) ran across a reference in print that Chaplin "converted to Roman Catholicism," in John R. Salter, Jr., "Chaplin, Ralph H. (1887-1961)," Encyclopedia of the American Left (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), p. 127. Dwalls (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
The August 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

On Anti-Americanism
My sympathies are with the anti-globalization movements. The inclusion of anti-globalization in the category was not meant as a slur. There is a serious problem with Anti-americanism. I have seen in India how anti-globalization movements are misused by local politicians, stripped of all the globalization awareness, and end up with only hackneyed Anti-american slogans that are beneficial for the agenda of the local party or group. This instrumentalization of the anti-globalization movement has to be analyzed and solutions have to be found so that it doesn't become a same old butt-beater, but a proactive and relevant group. I understand that the category can be misapplied though. My regards,Mohonu 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you're following the Anti-Americanism article, I got into a nasty edit war over the characterization of the counter-globalization movement. In my reading, the article characterizes counter-globalization as a whole as a stalking-horse for anti-Americanism. Of course many of us, in the US as well as abroad, see it as an anti-imperial movement, opposing, among others, the government of the US without opposing the people. Perhaps you can help clear this up.
 * I can't present sources for this first claim, but in my experience, there's strong feedback between the anti-Washington-Consensus counter-globalization concerns and anti-US-Hegemony anti-imperial ones. Opposition to either the Washington Consensus or US Hegemony can lead to opposition to the other. In some cases, yes, people have used such concerns to feed hostility to the American people, or vice-versa. However, the media often associate opposition to the policies of the government with hatred of the people, and certain groups label their opponents "Anti-American," with members of these groups assaulting their opponents. Jacob Haller 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Tucker
I like the little bit about Tucker on your user page. It's a nice, concise refutation of anarcho-capitalist claims to dignified roots. Aelffin 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jacob
Can you please insert some sources for your entries on Civil War Russian armies? Cheers Buckshot06 08:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no. I don't have the main source. I was working from entry-specific photocopies I made several years before, and I lost some sections, including the bibliographic data. It was a Soviet-era encyclopedia - in Russian, though my Russian is virtually nonexistent, the unit entries are standardized, and I've got good dictionaries - on the Civil War and Entente Intervention.
 * I figured that although I couldn't provide citations, the articles didn't have much of anything on the Civil War era, so it was worth adding anyway, until someone else could cover the gaps. Jacob Haller 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Jacob. Spotted your note on the talk page. You may not have noticed that the whole history of each army is covered in one page - the 'WW2' tag you added is inaccuate, as for example, the entry on the 40th Army covers WW2, postwar, and Afghanistan. This was my reason for amalgamating the army histories- for example, we don't have two articles on the 11th Army (Soviet Union) for the Civil War and for WW2 and afterwards, and as these entry are future article stubs, I wanted to keep the info together. You followed this approach yourself when adding info at Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945. Anyway, I disagree, but quite willing to discuss; user:W. B. Wilson may be the person to arbitrate, as he's the other main contributer to these sorts of articles. Cheers Buckshot06 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "absence of suitable template..."
That's about the weirdest edit explanation I've ever heard of. It doesn't make any sense to go about putting nonexistent templates in the encyclopedia. If something strikes you as non-sequitur, either edit it or go discuss it on the talk page. Don't allow templates that don't exist to sit around on pages. My 2 cents, anyway. Robert K S 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

NOR
Hey, I have not removed anything from my proposal, but I did add language from ASF to the NPOV section. I hope this is an acceptabel compromise for you, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is. I'm trying to think of better phrasing. Perhaps we should say that statements of opinion must be referenced and should be attributed to the appropriate group... Jacob Haller 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Crimean Goths
I have no objection to your dispute with the statement that Crimean Goths are a branch of the Ostrogoths, but if you are going to place a disputed tag, please put in a citation to the sources to the effect that "Heather, Kulikowski, et al. dispute this claim." Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am searching for more info on Crimean Gothic Arianism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Centralia Massacre
Phi Alpha Theta buff 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Hey Mr. Haller! This is Phi Alpha Theta buff. I see you're staying on top of the Centralia Massacre article too, so I thought I'd talk to you directly!

I've been going back on and forth on how much I should generalize the populace of Centralia as a whole, and keep coming back to the 1914-1919 timeframe of these events. Admittedly, by the late 1920's & definitely into the 1930's, popular opinion had taken a radical (nice pun, eh?) shift and the IWW had solid local and state-wide support.

However, up through the massacre and post trial (until about 1925), the vast vast majority of the citizenry of Centralia was fervently anti-IWW... not just because of the labor views, but also the nature of the most of the IWW members: itinerant, homeless, etc. The IWW was considered unpatriotic, bad for "big" business, bad for local business, bad for the town, bringing in "unsavory elements", causing crime, etc. etc. Opposition pretty much came from all sides, not just "the establishment". Whether or not it was justified or simply the result of inflammotory speeches and the like I think is is irrelevant, it was there.

Have a proposal... I will also be updating the Aftermath section of the article. In that, I will reference the general change in attitude of the town including the toning down of the opposition to parole for the convicted Wobblies - especially into the 1930's.

Once I've done that, I'd like to remove the "neutrality questioned" tags because, I think, we should have the "general populace" bias in the main body of the article. Yes, it is a bias, but I truly do think it is historically accurate because the town WAS biased.

What do you think???


 * I can see two ways to address my concern there: (1) in this case, citing nonpartisan sources which show that would help, though, in most political contexts, most people are relatively uninvolved (2) I don't have many sources, but the best option might be to cite sources for the makeup of each side. For example, in the west, most Wobs were itinerant workers. I can cite non-Centralia-specific sources for this. It might also help if you can find sources explaining why the union hall was in Centralia instead of elsewhere. Jacob Haller 19:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Arianism
My apologies. When I added the deprecated tag to the template, the template had no uses. I see you added it to two articles; as such I've removed the tag. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism exeternal links section
If you were refering to this, that is not a valid explanation. Nozick is renowned philosopher and who hosts his essay is irrelevant. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
The September 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lange Model
Hello, I was wondering if you could give me any feedback on the recent additions I've made to the Lange Model article. Thank you so much! --EMB330 20:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'd like to help, but I'm not really familiar with Lange's proposals, and I'm reallu overstretched on Wikipedia already. Jacob Haller 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
The October 2007 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dyer Lum, GA status, and the notability of Kevin Carson
Yo, just stopping by from Talk:Dyer Lum. The article is on the brink of GA status but its success depends on establishing the expertise of Kevin A. Carson on the topic. The article relies heavily on Carson's blog, which is only admissible as a source if the blog is "...produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't know much about Carson but I suspect he qualifies...do you think you could weigh in at the discussion or do you know anyone who might be able to help? Thanks in advance, Skomorokh  incite 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ostrogoth Kingdom grammatical error?
Hi Jacob. On my East-Hem 500ad.jpg map's talk page, you brought up that I have a grammatical error in the "Ostrogoth Kingdom". I appreciate you pointing out any possible errors, but please let me know how I can fix it! Should it be "Ostrogoths' Kingdom" or what? Also, any other suggestions would be appreciated! Thank you in advance, -- Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 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 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. CO GDEN  00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite to the Anarchism Task Force
Yo, Jacob, if you're still activiely editing, Cast, Murderbike, myself and a few others have started an Anarchism taskforce to collaborate on anarchism-related articles; get a few up to GA status, create needed articles a la Dyer Lum, save worthy articles from deletion, and hopefully to have it serve as a central point to discuss what to do with all the splits from Anarchism over the years, to keep the clusterfuck of pov-warring in check, and to keep Talk:Anarchism free from all the usual meta-argumentation. Look forward to seeing you around, regards, Skomorokh  incite 00:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

An article or 2 you might enjoy
  LoveMonkey (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 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) 00:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Ethnic slur
A tag has been placed on Template:Ethnic slur requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 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) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The March 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) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gothic War 402-403
Hi Jacob,


 * I noticed that at the page Gothic War, you added the Gothic War of 402-403. Do you have any information on this war?
 * Also, it seems that you are interested in the Goths. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Barbarians? We could use a Gothic expert. Just add your username to the list to join.
 * Thanks!--Pecopteris (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Aëtius of Antioch
I see you added Template:Contradict to Aëtius of Antioch some time ago, but there is no Talk comment corresponding to this. Could you please clarify where you see the contradiction? If this refers to the fact that different sources say different things about him, I don't think this should count as a contradiction in the article. --macrakis (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Beatus of Liébana
Could you help address this diff? --RoyBoy 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Arian controversy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arian controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Arian controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &mdash; Jpacobb (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Missing
Hi. You are now listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 18:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)