User talk:Larry Dunn/Archive 1

Edit summaries
Someone has reverted your changes to Knight. When you're removing a major chunk of content, edit summaries and/or discussion on the talk page can help &mdash; I didn't realize what you were doing until I looked at your contributions and saw the edits to Sassanid army and so forth. Choess 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history?
As you seem to have an interest in military history, might I be able to persuade you to join the Military history WikiProject? Having someone else around with an interest in the Italian Wars—even if only tangential—would be very nice! Kirill Lokshin 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, that would be great, but I can't send you an e-mail right now -- I'll add an e-mail address and then gey back to you!


 * That'll be fine; or you can just sign up on the member list directly. Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 21 August 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 quite regularly. 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 recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
 * Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
 * Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

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 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 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 -- 12:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Pike
Thank you very much for your updates of the "pike" article. There was a lot of good stuff in there, but the formatting was terrible before you standardized it. It's an important subject, so it's nice to have a proper page. Therealhazel 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested edits
Larry, you have done a superb job of describing the history and use of pikes in this article, and I have complete respect for your expertise concerning this topic. The few edits I suggested earlier were made in good faith to help improve the wording or intended sense of your text, but in some cases these were misunderstandings on my part, for which I apologize. Your reverts in those cases are completely justifiable. In the latest round of edits I just offered, I hope you will agree that they either improve the point your were making, or help your wording to read more easily and understandably. For example, I suggest using "subunits using firearms", or something similar, instead of the generic term "shooters" that was used earlier in your text to describe a wide range of troops, including bowmen. Elsewhere, I suggest improving the contrast you were making between the close-combat nature of pikemen vs. the long-range lethality of troops armed with firearms; an excellent point that might be lost if left as worded before. In another instance, I suggest that redundant terms like "date" be elimated by using a different term, such as "time," or by rewriting the sentence, which I have done for this purpose. Finally, I suggest that "warfare" is an improvement over "warfighting" as a descriptive term for the activity you describe. All in all, these are corrections to minor nits that I think will improve your outstanding Wipipedia contribution on this subject. Jack Bethune 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have any regard for my extensive expansion of this page, then do me the courtesy of allowing what are my word choices, rather than any incorrect use of English. I have accepted whatever suggestions you made which were clearly corrections of inaccuracies, as you can see.  In my opinion, the remaining comments you are inserting do not strengthen the text I had added to this entry.Larry Dunn 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Knight
Please do not blindly revert extensive, and sourced, edits. If you object to my additions, please discuss on the talk page; that's what it's for. Since they are my understanding of Bloch, it would be nice to explain yourself.


 * You might wish to follow your own advice -- you extensively reworked the page, including inaccurate revisions (such as the incorrect summary of Ministeriales as being Sergeants, which they surely were not -- see German Knighthood 1000-1300 by Benjamin Arnold), without any such discussion whatsoever.Larry Dunn 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Latin ministeriales = French sergents = German Dienstmaenner Bloch, Feudal Society p. 337, as cited. I will consult Arnold when I lay hands on a copy. In the meantime, four separate paragraphs on feudality and knighthood is three too many. JCScaliger 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Bloch is an old work, and not specific to the topic of German knighthood. Knowledge of medieval history has advanced greatly in the past 80 years, as a reading of Arnold will attest.Larry Dunn 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is Knight; not German knighthood. If you care to write that article, fine; although I would extend such an article at least to the Renaissance, if not the present day. JCScaliger 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the technology, although not the social system, of knighthood, may well be influenced by the cataphract; they are attested from late Roman Gaul, most notably Ecdicius of Vienne. JCScaliger 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cataphracts have nothing whatsoever to do with European knights, technologically or otherwise. The knight's panoply developed very slowly and gradually from the simple chain shirt and helmet worn by German warriors since the late Roman period.Larry Dunn 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you would care to discuss the matter, either my talkpage or Talk:Knight would be appropriate. There are also various means of mediation; see Dispute resolution. JCScaliger 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the third time today you have reverted sourced materal, and inflicted pointless collateral damage. Please stop; reversion is intended to deal with obvious vandalism, not with an edit discussion.


 * This is as short as I can make this subject without being misleading: ministeriales existed across Europe, not just in Germany; many of them were "freemen"; and most of them were not knights. These largely escape Arnold's treatment, except for occasional comparisons; but he is writing on a limited subject, compared with the present article.


 * I have also made a separate section; I have no objection to moving it elsewhere; although the flow seems reasonable, and the whole section deals with 800-1300. JCScaliger 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You have now reverted the fourth time in twenty-four hours. This violates both the Wikipedia tradition of compromise and working together; it also breaches one of Wikipedia's few hard rules, the three revert policy. I expect that you did not mean to do this, and are simply unaccustomed to working collaboratively. Please revert yourself, and establish a compromise version, as soon as possible. JCScaliger 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
The September 2006 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 - 19:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ceresole
Hey, if you have a bit of free time, might you be able to comment on my peer review request for the battle? You're one of the few editors here who actually knows enough about the Italian Wars to be able to critically examine the content! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure Kirill, I'd be happy to -- looks like an extensive article! I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it.Larry Dunn 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Then can we save the admin's time by marking the complaint withdrawn?

Btw, unless your motto is intended to be dog-Latin, you may want to check the declension of ars. :->

And if you will take another word of advice, continued reversion is not the best way to deal with these problems; better to give the most your conscience will allow in the direction the other wants. This will often lead to an unexpected compromise; because you never know what form of words will be mutually acceptable. I have had a long war on Greeks resolved by adding a few words on the continuity of Greek culture; the nationalists thought the rest of us were opposed to it, whereas we thought it was obvious, and were opposed to the blood-and-soil exaggerations.

I don't think Scaliger is that irrational, mind you. Septentrionalis 02:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason to continue this conversation off the record. You wrote me:
 * in a 24-hour period, this user changed text I put into the page as part of a debate over that wording, which I understand to be a violation of Wikipedia rules.

You have wiki-custom almost backwards. Changing text submitted by others is intended and supported; as it says on your edit screen: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ..., do not submit it. What is severely deprecated is insisting on one and the same text without efforts to compromise. "This user" may have infringed on that, we shall see what the admin thinks; but you were blocked for violating it. I don't know what exactly the admin you cite wrote you, but I would be astounded if she disagreed.

I post this here; passing strangers are welcome to comment. Septentrionalis 04:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Departed

 * I read the page and it says:
 * Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.


 * And the "resolving disputes" page says:


 * Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.


 * This point has been made to me forcefully, but now it's been done to an edit I've made, by an administrator at that, and my edit is described as being in "bad faith."


 * Meanwhile, I explained in the discussion section why I removed that section from the article -- an entire section on what the HK actors had to say about the movie seems very ill-conceived.


 * The Departed article had a tag on it asking to clean it up and copyedit it, so I took a shot at it. I spent a lot of time on it trying to make it a stronger article.  I've had people remove my content, and when I try to revert it or edit the deletions I'm told that "if you aren't prepared to be mercilessly copyedited, don't post content."  But when I edit, I get a warning.  I'm really lost on the rules, folks.  (Yes, I've read them.)  Whether you like my editing style or not (and I am trying to improve it), I am trying to improve the content of the articles I work on.


 * My understanding is that the Sandbox is for experimenting with editing text from a mechanical perspective, but I know how to do that.


 * By the way, what you reverted to was an edit to that section (reactions) I myself had made, so it should be patently obvious that I was trying to improve the section. Even after the reformatting, the section just doesn't make any sense, and really weakens the article, so I removed it.  Larry Dunn 02:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Upon further evaluation, I don't believe that your edits were vandalism or bad faith editing. I think it was a mistake for that admin to accuse you of that.  You did remove alot of the content of the page without adding anything to it, but I think you did so with good intentions.  We may disagree on the merits of the "Differences" section...I think it's valid information and belongs on the page, even though it isn't purely about The Departed.  Since it's a remake, I think it is important to casual fans that might be inquiring this kind of thing (which I think is a part of wikipedia that's really cool, because you can get some information here that might not be available in another encyclopedia).  The reactions part, I'm not sure I really have an opinion on...you're right, it doesn't really mean anything to the movie, but I've seen other articles that have such a section, so I'm not sure.  In closing, thanks for your contributions to The Departed page, and I hope you'll still contribute on the discussion pages because your opinions are valuable.  --MonkBirdDuke 07:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks MonkBirdDuke, but the problem is that an admin said it was, and issued a warning to me. I'm trying to discuss with that admin, but I've gotten no response so far.Larry Dunn 17:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry, I removed the warning for you. It is quite clear to me that you are not a vandal. I think Madchester was probably doing recent change patrol and he simply made a mistake. It happens easily enough when you're trying to keep up with RC. I'm sorry you received that warning. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
The October 2006 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 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Swiss mercenaries and Spain
Hi Larry! I'm away from my library right now, but I'll check. That bit comes from Suter, but I'll see if one of my more specialized book on Swiss mercenaries has some more on this. As for rating the article: well, why don't you? Lupo 10:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't realize I could. I suspected that rating was an admin function.Larry Dunn 15:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should it be an admin function? Admins are normal users like anybody else. They are the only ones who can delete stuff and block other users, but that doesn't make them any better than non-admins. Any other function on Wikipedia can be done by admins and non-admins alike. If someone indeed invented a rule that reserved article rating for admins, he's a fruitcake. :-) Go ahead! Lupo 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Individual Swiss mercenaries in Spain are known as of 1482. In 1487, the royal chronicler Fernando del Pulgar mentions their presence at the preparations of an expedition against Granada. ... the Swiss influence on the development of the armament and tactics of the Tercios used in Flanders and Naples is undeniable."
 * First alliance contract with Spain in 1515, renewed 8 times (last time in 1552). So-called "Capitulations of Milan". 1557 new treaty with Philip II of Spain. 1587, in the spirit of the Counterreformation, treaty with the Catholic central Swiss cantons, which included Spain's obligation to pay the Pensions. Because the Protestant part of Appenzell refused to join this treaty, the canton was split in 1497 in a Catholic and a Protestant part.
 * This alliance of 1587 was renewed in 1604 and expired in 1621. 1622 Spain stopped paying the Pensions. Renewal of the treaty in 1634, last renewed 1705.
 * Spain only recruited Swiss regiments from the Catholic cantons.
 * First regular Swiss regiment in Spanish services: 1574, regiment of Walter Roll from Uri, for service in the Spanish Netherlands. Philip III and Philip IV of Spain in the first half of the 17th century concluded capitulations for a total of twelve Swiss regiments. In the 2nd half of the 17th century, Swiss regiments participated in campaigns against Portugal and against rebellions in Catalonia; in the Spanish War of Succession again in northern Italy (Milan).
 * Swiss regiments also in Naples (from 1718 on). Two Protestant regiments also served there briefly in Spanish services, but were soon sent home. Subsequent capitulations prescribe that officers and soldiers have to be of Catholic faith.
 * Swiss regiments in Spanish services fought (besides at Naples) in northern Africa (1732), in the Polish War of Succession (1734/35, in Sicily and Naples), the Austrian War of Succession (1741-48, Savoy and northern Italy; 5 regiments with more than 30,000 men), Portugal (1762), Algeria (1775, 1790), and also against England (1781/82). Then also from 1793 on against France, also in the Spanish independence war against Napoleon 1808-1814. Of the 6 regiments with 12,000 men only two joined the French. The Swiss regiments were decimated in these fights and numbered only a few hundred men by 1812.
 * 1823 the Swiss service in Spain ended.
 * See also Talk:Military history of Switzerland, or (In German.)
 * Not covered in this brief chronology are Swiss volunteers fighting in the Spanish Civil War in the International Brigades (some 800 men) or on Franco's side (some 40 Swiss). On that topic, see e.g. Kindlimann, A.: Schweizer im Spanischen Bürgerkrieg, pp. 277 – 290 in Fuher/Eyer (eds.): Schweizer in "Fremden Diensten", NZZ Verlag, Zürich 2006; ISBN 3-03823-196-7.


 * HTH, Lupo 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote: "Swiss mercenary service after the 1520s for nations other than France"... well, the above is only for Spain. Swiss mercenaries fought for many other countries, too. Lupo 07:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I recently ordered from amazon.de the new book you cited on Swiss mercenary service (Schweizer in Fremden Diensten) -- there's not a lot available on this topic in English. My German is creaky so it's going to take me a long time to labor through it, but I'm still looking forward to receiving it!
 * On the subject of rating your article on the peasant's war, I guess I will give it a B rating. I think it deserves higher, but I don't think one just gives an A rating -- I think it has to be voted on or something.  Then again, what I don't know about wikipedia could fill volumes, which people who disagree with me on content use to their advantage.
 * Are you Swiss, Lupo? If so, from where? Larry Dunn 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you need help with anything in that book, feel free to ask. It's a collection of articles written by several experts (about half of them by Fuhrer/Eyer themselves). It does not cover everything, but it has some overview treatises and then a number of focus topics, including modern themes such as the Swiss in the Spanish Civil War, Swiss in the SS, or also Captain Wirz in the U.S. Civil War. I find it very interesting and will use it eventually to improve the article Swiss mercenaries, but for more complete coverage, the book should be complemented with other sources. Lupo 08:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

cavalry tactics
You mentioned this book about panzerstecher (this is German. Is it also the English name?). I sthere something written about tactics? As this weapon is similar to a Bihänder which was wielded like a short spear, I strongly suppose that there are some similarities to the use of short spears on horseback, so I can create a section on this important topic, also thank you for providing info on more units using this weapon. Wandalstouring 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There really isn't a name for it in English. Perhaps you could call it a tuck, but a tuck was more rapierlike and less long and heavy than the panzerstecher.  (The again, one always runs into such nomenclature problems when one looks at weapons names used from one nation to another.) The tactics of its use are covered in the Osprey book I mentioned.  It may seen superficially spear-like, but it had different dynamics being a sword and being held like one, rather than like a spear.  Actually -- you might even be able to find it in Google books if you do a search -- many Ospreys are on their database .... Larry Dunn 20:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, often the interpretation of a slashing use is doubted, it seems more like a thrusting weapon, as far as I know from reenactment and like with a spear only the tip and some 30cm were sharp at a bihänder. What is a bit different is the movement, but not too much. Of course you could initially slash with it or if you were not fighting in close quarters. Well, OK, too much time spent listening to swordfighters. Will try to read Osprey, but would appreciate your help. Wandalstouring 20:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any doubt that the purpose of the panzerstecher/Koncerz was to thrust. The blades themselves were often triangular or even square in cross-section.Larry Dunn 20:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Thanks for the warning. I hope you are willing to discuss the matter, instead of reverting.--RedMC 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Added an operations map for Battle of Seminara
Larry, I've added a map showing the military operations leading up to the Battle of Seminara. The arrows showing the troops movements are, of course, intended to show the general direction of the movement rather than a precise path. Let me know if this meets the need &/or if you have any suggestions. MapMaster 15:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrific work!Larry Dunn 22:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would certainly love to make a tactical map for this battle, Larry. I would suggest that you scan the map (is that possible?) and then either email it to me or load it up to Commons.  MapMaster 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
The November 2006 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 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End of pike usage
I have never heard of your experts of the 1798 rebellion Goldwyn.Smith and CE Vulliamy – that they may have used such a false generalisation does their credibility on this period little good. The references cited do not display any depth in understanding of the period. In future please provide references to amendments and do not delete what you do not agree with without giving justifications.

--Damnbutter 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The sources are not "false" just because you've never heard of them, or because they support an assertion that you personally dislike. Anyway, this all goes to show that the article goes into too much detail on the particulars of the Irish campaigns -- if the Irish rebellions are making a perfectly valid general statement such a subject of controversy, better to parse it out in the  articles featuring the rebellions in more detail. Larry Dunn 22:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Barnstars are a Wikipedia tradition and I believe it appropriate to award one to you. Your efforts are a good example to other editors and your work is appreciated. --Yamla 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It's appreciated.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
The December 2006 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 22:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

On Barbarian.. Again
Hello Larry, you may be interested in the conversation currently going on at Talk:Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire. Please feel free to give your opinion. bloodofox: 19:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert O'Connor (author)
Larry - In case you are not aware, the Robert O'Connor article originally started out being about the author, but then was hijacked and turned into an article about the singer. Do you wish to add some of the material from the most recent version prior to the change to your new article? Nuxx 22:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a lot of work that's not really necessary, at this point. Larry Dunn 13:48, 5 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 20:56, 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 11:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hukawng Valley
As the facilitator of the Burma WikiProject, I have been cleaning up the geography stubs and placing maps of at least the state or division a place is located. If you would like to create an accurate location map of the valley, and further improve the article, please do so! Chris 01:42, 13 February 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 14:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Larry, please stop your reversions in the Battle of Brandy Station article. I have been editing Wikipedia for over three years, have written over 300 articles, and have never been forced to report a user for violation of WP:3RR, but I will do so if you do not stop. That article is fully footnoted, and while you may not personally agree with every statement, you have ample opportunity to add alternative opinions from reputable historians instead of wholesale deletions, which is the appropriate way to obtain WP:NPOV (which means that POVs are neutral or balanced, not suppressed). Thank you for your cooperation. Hal Jespersen 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandy Station
Please stop vandalizing the article Battle of Brandy Station. Your refusal to specifically source disputed facts, and simple reversions of deletions of unsourced and irrelevant material, constitutes vandalism and will be treated as such if you persist, including reporting to administrators. (I should point out that one error you have made is verifying a fact by citing another wikipedia article, which is circular as that article itself would need to be verified and may have been edited by you to support some unverified statement.) Please also stop treating the article as if you "own" it, deciding for yourself what belongs in the article and what does not. I would suggest that you set up a blog if you do not like articles to which you have contrubuted being edited. That applies equally to users who have drafted "300 articles over three years," as you indicated in your comment you left on my talk page. In fact, it should apply even more to them, as they should know better. Larry Dunn 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, look, let's stop throwing around the scare word of vandalism. I did it once improvidently, you pushed back, I should have apologized, but didn't. I should have and do. So let's discuss simply the merits of the case. I think we're boiling this down to three text passages:


 * 1. The statement that Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville were Confederate victories. The reason this is there is to portray the Army of Northern Virginia as having high confidence. (I could just as easily find a number of historians with quotations regarding Lee's believe in the invincibility of his men following Chancellorsville.) This assertion is adequately cited by the footnote at the end of the short paragraph, which is a common practice by historians, but if you insist on a footnote for that explicit statement, as obvious as it is, I provided one. I took a shortcut and pointed to the Wikipedia articles because I was away from my library at the time, but I am now pointing to the original NPS battle summary articles.


 * 2. The quotation regarding the review on June 8. All historians describing the Gettysburg campaign and the Battle of Brandy Station make reference to this review as another instance of overconfidence on the part of the Confederates. The Union Army was just across the river and Jeb Stuart let down his guard, ignored them, and fatigued his men and horses on a pointless and excessive military ceremony. The quotation from Stephen Sears, who is currently the most prominent historian of the Gettysburg campaign, illustrates the nature of the review. It would be possible to remove the quotation and replace it with a drier description. If you would like to attempt that, I would not object as long as the major thrust of the information is retained. (I personally feel that adding quotations to Wikipedia articles makes them more readable for the average reader, just as we add images to spice up articles. However, I recognize that using a quote instead of a description is my personal opinion and am willing to compromise with someone who has strong alternative opinions.)


 * 3. The quotation from McClellan. I think this is an extremely important piece of historical data that validates the opinions of virtually all historians, north and south -- all agree that the Union cavalry went through a turning point at Brandy Station and were no longer derided and discounted by their southern counterparts. Using a quotation from a Confederate officer is a particularly effective way to make that point. Many of the references to this article cite that quotation. It is relevant to those historians and fully in accordance with WP:VERIFY.


 * Let's stop reverting the article until we can come to an off-line agreement on these three points. OK? Hal Jespersen 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You made this invitation after reverting yourself, so I've now reverted as well, and accept the invitation.


 * Let's look at the three points.


 * 1. Fredericksburg and Chacellorsville. If you will add a cite from a peer-reviewed source, I'll be fully satisfied and will leave the text in.


 * 2. Two points on the review of the Confederate cavalry.  a) The text on the review has a glorifying tone not really appropriate for an encyclopedia.  To the extent that it belongs anywhere, even once trimmed down to be more objectively factual, it belongs in an account of the overall campaign in the summer of 63.  It's just not sufficiently related to the Battle of Brandy Station, and it just further increases the amount of background material, which dilutes the strength of the article.  Can it be trimmed down and find a home elsewhere in the articles on 1863, Summer, East?


 * 3. To the extent that this point needs to been made, I think it already has been.  And McClellan's quote creates the impression that Union cavalry was uniformly bad in all theaters before 1863, which is not really true.  I've been removing it because it's evidenciary value is outweighed by its distortion of the facts.


 * To sum up, I think we can reach agreement, and the article itself will be improved, if:


 * 1) a cite is given for the assertion about Fberg and Cville
 * 2) the text about the review is put into the article on the 63 eastern summer campaign, in abbreviated form
 * 3) the McClellan quote is dropped


 * Seems a good compromise, and one strengtening the factual basis of the article.Larry Dunn 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be clear about terminology, since I added the original material and you deleted it, you are technically the one doing the reversion, not I. But let that slide for the time being and resume discussing the merits.


 * If you don't mind, I'm going to do an internet style response to make the conversation easier. My point was that there have been numerous back and forth reverts, but you asked to stop the revert cycle ... after reverting.  More to the point, if someone removes something and the originating party wants to put it back in, there needs to be some sort of agreement to it back in, per the verifiability rules for wikipedia.  Anyway ....

1. It is rather unorthodox for someone to insist on a peer-reviewed citation in Wikipedia. I could legitimately argue that the NPS website, produced as part of the American Battlefield Protection Program, is the result of a collaborative exercise by many prominent historians and is therefore implicitly peer-reviewed. However, citations for these facts are quite abundant. Eicher's work in the References, for example, pp. 405, 488. (I can add this after we finish the discussion.)


 * Not sure what this was responding to. I had asked that some source other than a Wikipedia article be cited to support a disputed fact in a wikipedia article.  Can you clarify?


 * I used sequence numbers in my reply to match the sequence numbers of your three comments. You specifically asked for a "peer-reviewed" citation (not a non-WP-article) in this latest round of comments, which was actually an escalation of your previous request. Anyway, I am submitting Eicher's ref for this.

2. I still want to argue for the inclusion of the factual information, regardless of whether it is expressed in an interesting quotation from a prominent historian or in a drier style. I would not object to including more of this information in the overall Gettysburg Campaign article, but it is of direct relevance to this battle, even more so than the campaign. (Some have argued that the battle itself had a large significance on the campaign in that Stuart was embarrassed and his reaction to that precipitated the unfortunate ride away from Lee's army.) If I had to boil down the reaction of professional historians to this battle to one sentence, it would be "Stuart was overconfident about his cavalry's superiority, but was surprised and humiliated by the first spirited and competent attack of the Union cavalry." This is not my personal opinion, it is my synthesis from reading dozens of books on the subject. Therefore, providing information about Stuart's state of mind and the condition of his men and horses on the day before the battle seems extremely relevant to the battle article and less so to the campaign. (That's the reason for number 1 as well, by the way. The only conceivable reason to mention previous battles is to address the state of mind of the Confederates.)


 * Is this is response to my deletion of the review background? I don't think that the review is necessarily out of place in wikipedia, it's just that it's so extensive from a factual perspective that it skews the article about the battle that followed it.


 * Let me give an example. It's like if there was an article about a fight, but the background section of the article had a huge description of a date one of the boxers had a week before the fight.  You may read the article and come away with nothing but a memory of the date.  The antecedents should be in proportion to their importance to the main topic, and frankly the battle would probably have come out exactly the same whether there had been a review or not.  That's the basis of my objection.


 * Why not just start an article for it on it's own? You've actually got enough material for it.  Then you can drop a wikilink into the article on Brandy Station.


 * It is really too obscure for a separate article, of no particular relevance outside of the context of the battle that followed the next day, so I would prefer that we agree on including it, whether it is shortened or put in the form of a non-quotation or whatever. Using your boxer analogy, this is the equivalent of the boxer being so cocky about his chances of success that the night before he goes out drinking and gets wasted. The next day, everyone is amazed that he loses the fight, because he has never lost one before. You may argue that there is too much detail about the drinking the night before, but the nature of is activities the night before is relevant to an article about the boxing match. And back to the Civil War, we need to provide some detail about what happened at the review -- cavalry charges, simulated artillery duels, etc. -- so that the reader does not scratch his head and say "big deal, the cavalrymen passed in review in front of Lee."

3. If you want to interpret McClellan's remarks very literally without context and suggest that he could be referring to cavalry actions outside of the Eastern theater as well, I guess I can understand your opposition to this quotation. How about if I add an editorial bracketed phrase "[in the Eastern Theater]" after "Federal cavalry" or change his signature block to be "Major Henry B. McClellan, Stuart's adjutant, commenting on the history of the cavalry in the Eastern Theater." Or it could be done inline, without using a separate box for the quotation. As I said earlier, I believe it is completely legitimate to include this quotation because many prominent Civil War historians do so in their books. Those historians consider it completely relevant and do not consider it to be a distortion of fact.

Hal Jespersen 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I concede that the article is an interesting perspective from a period author/participant, but I'd suggest that it creates an incorrect impression, and that hurts the article, while adding nothing to the article, as the point McClellan makes is already made in the article. I think the article is stronger without.


 * Well, what about the editorial clarification compromise I'm offering in #3 above? It removes any incorrect impression, which is a legitimate objection, leaving only a stylistic dispute, which is a matter of personal preference. My preference is to include it because it adds a slight bit of color to the article and it matches the work of a number of historians in this space.


 * Thoughts? Tell me if you object to the internet style of discussion -- IMO it works much better when having a multiple issue discussion.Larry Dunn 21:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No objections, although most WP editors don't do it this way. You can also email me directly for discussions of this type. Hal Jespersen 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, just to be safe I'll go back to the old way of adding discussion. On the three points:


 * 1) A published external source should be fine. I didn't mean peer review in its strict sense, I meant general,mainstream publication of a source so that other historians can weigh in on the reliability of the book.  So Wikipedia articles, smaller publications, self-published, websites, etc., would be excluded.  A book like Battle Cry of Freedom or Lee's Lieutenants would of course be fine (although there are those who would argue that each book is biased).


 * 2) I'd suggested that the story of the review have its own page as a compromise, to save your work. I still don't think it has any place in this article, other than as a brief reference, which has been preserved.


 * On the analogy, if an encyclopedia article were written about this hypothetical fight, I don't think it would include your reference to the boxer being so cocky due to a date that he lost the fight -- it's just not verifiable and not encyclopedic. Not only that, it would unduly focus on incidental events, throwing off the focus of the entry.  That's what I think the long description does.


 * 3) Let me ask what color you think this adds to the discussion that isn't already in the text of the article. There are lots of quotes by actual participants -- that would be color that the article doesn't presently have.  How about one of those instead? Larry Dunn 18:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any progress on this? I would like to implement my compromise proposal in the article and have you make clarifications (vs. deletions) as necessary to satisfy your objections. Hal Jespersen 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to throw in the towel on this. Taking the article from 95% good to 100% is not worth all this discussion and reversion to me. I will omit the one sentence on former battles, the one-paragraph quote on the review, and the two-sentence quote that all major historians include. If you have further communications planned, use email or post into my Talk page. Hal Jespersen 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's anything wrong with having the reference to former battles, as long as it's cited. If you want, I will find the cites. Larry Dunn 19:18, 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 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism
Please don’t accuse me of vandalism. You do not seem able to differentiate from a difference of opinion from vandalism. I can assure you that I acted in good faith at all times. Whereas I felt that your constant removal of any reference to the wargame rules NAME DELETED to be closer to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. Why did you feel that other rules were allowed to be listed?

I also do not appreciate being accused of being a meatpuppet either. I have been an editor of Wikipedia from before the current situation developed regarding the wargame rules NAME DELETED.

Your threat of blocking me is not in any way conducive to the settlement of the current situation with respect to the wagame rules NAME DELETED.

Nellkyn 15:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
The goal of mediation is twofold, in my mind: first, and foremost, the goal is to help you all come to agreement regarding the article's notability (or barring that at least get to a point where policy is clearer on it). Secondly, It would be wonderful if we could get to a point where you all could get along. --Moralis (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusation of Spamming
Having first accused me of vandalism you now feel that you can accuse me of spamming. I assume that you will also accuse me of vandalising of your User page at some point.

Although you feel at liberty to make accusations of me you do not feel the need to follow the Wikipedias own guidelines for warning spammers. I feel that I have followed correct protocols by voicing my concerns on the discussion page of your User page but you feel that you are able to make accusations of me on my User page.

Having read the section you directed me to, how not to be a spammer I can say with a clear conscience that I was not spamming the Miniature Wargaming page. I felt that the rules DELETED were noteworthy enough to be include in Wikipedia due to their different approach in recreating World War II company level combat. I have no other connection with DELETED other than being a very happy customer.

Finally may I enquire why did not feel the need to tag the Miniature Wargaming page as being prone to spam?

Nellkyn 11:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Joy Williams (writer)
Sorry, jumped the gun. --Tractor kings fan 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem.Larry Dunn 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good news
.

Point out any reincarnations that pop up. Cheers. The Behnam 23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Road (novel)
Terms like "haunting" are not encyclopedic. They are more suitable for a review or a blurb than for a Wikipedia article. Thanks for trying to contribute, though (as well as for your other contributions)! -- Orange Mike 22:57, 22 April 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 14:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Map of Sassanid Empire
I made one, what do you think of it. View it here The Honorable Kermanshahi 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

About the three issues, 1) what would you then suggest other then sollid colors. 2)In that campaign it reached it's greatest extend and the size of the Japanese empire is shown on the page as 7.4 milion wich it was during WWII. 3)I thought it should only show the difference between the empire at it's largest and what was usually considererd as the empire. The Honorable Kermanshahi 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I heared your argument but that's why the map shows the usual territories of the sassanid empire in a different colour so you can see what the empire usually looked like and see how much territory it had at it's greatest extend. The Honorable Kermanshahi 18:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Image removals
What is the reasoning behind your recent image removals, such as Rangers.png from Rangers F.C., a fair use image with a rationale provided? WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask the same thing. I have replaced the image but I look forward to your explanation of why you removed it. --John 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Admittedly, it's not an area I have a particular amount of knowledge in, but removing the amount of images which would require to be removed under those criteria seems somewhat drastic - even if correct - and perhaps should be subject to a discussion on a project page first? WATP (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. If that were a valid reason to remove an image, we would have no fair use logos at all on Wikipedia particles. I know you meant well, but I don't think this was a good edit. Best wishes, --John 20:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Logos before removing any more fair use logos. --John 20:55, 5 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 15:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Improper removal of non-free use dispute tags
I try hard not to be amused that your reasoning keeps changing with every round of image-tagging or image-removal you do. If the issue is to do with living people, why, then, did you remove the images of Harry Bedford (died in 1976) (diff), Joe Smith (died 1971) (diff), George Farrow (died 1980) (diff) and George Farm (died 2004) (diff)?

While I'm flattered to have you as a stalker, it isn't the first time I've had one, and it's not as exciting as it once was. This is all obviously connected to the conversation we had regarding the Jeanfield Swifts F.C. logo. The reasons you brought up were discussed here and here, and it seems the fair-use rationale provided was fine after all.

Thank you, though, for finally using a dispute that is based in truth. As such, I accept them. - Dudesleeper · Talk 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Foot image
Hi,

As a heads-up, I reverted the foot page for reasons below:

Part of the reason I'm removing it from the page is because the anon IP is adding it to numerous pages on wikipedia. There are numerous better pictures of the soles of feet that don't have the distraction of a person in it. If the purpose of a wikipage is to describe something, any picture of that something should be the clearest one possible - in this case, lacking a head in the backgroud. Regards the foot page, there's a better picture of just a sole without a person in it. If you do revert again, please be sure to retain the interwiki that keeps getting taken out by the repeated undoes.

For the sole page, there's already an enormous picture of a male and female sole at the top, the page is quite short and having a second largish image aligned on the left is pretty ugly in my mind (an aesthetic choice, I admit), and unnecessary in such a short article with the much clearer and more informative picture immediately visible on the top of the page. I didn't revert this one without discussing in order to give you a chance to comment or discuss, and the only reason I reverted the foot page is to retain the interwiki.

Please let me know what you think, I've gotta run so my apologies for not leaving a more coherent post.

WLU 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Yes I did mean your talk page rather than the article's talk page, since there's 2 pages involved I thought it easier to use your talk page instead.
 * The foot is attached to a person, but the foot is in front of her face, which is not a usual position for a foot. Having the head and book in the background is a distraction and doesn't add anything to the page, given you can't see the rest of the body and therefore there's no sense of how the foot connects to the leg, torso, etc (though that's kinda a stupid argument given that anyone reading the page probably has their own feet).  The foot page has three pictures of feet in the gallery - side, top and sole.  I'd like to take the B&W picture from sole (foot) and put it in the foot page as a better choice.  In my mind the sole page itself doesn't need a second picture, it's quite short and I find the current one quite intrusive, as well as being on the wrong side of the page.  Given that you almost literally can't read the page without seeing the top picture of the soles of the feet, I think a second picture is unnecessary.
 * Those are my thoughts, I'll wait for your response before I do anything about it, my apologies for the reverts yesterday - I should have saved the message on your talk page before undoing the changes. I should never edit when I'm in a hurry! WLU 16:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removals
There is indeed often a dire need to remove vast swaths of content in many of our articles, but I really recommend that you be a bit more discerning about what you get rid of. You should try to make more compromise edits instead of simply auto-reverting.

Peter Isotalo 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like claiming consensus to convince others, but you appear to be the only one set on illustrating articles you've worked on with almost nothing but grainy black and white scans.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:38, 27 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 14:15, 8 July 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 03:35, 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! Kirill 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lara
PLease try to wikify and categorize new articles you create. I helped you out with this one Thankyou ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      "Talk"? 21:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

OK but why not use User:Larry Dunn/Sandbox?. You forget that once you post the page it is part of the encyclopedia and in front of millions of people so you can't have a go at editors who are monitoring. Why not create it there and then post it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     "Talk"? 21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or at least use the show preview button when editing so when you save it is complete ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <font color="Navy">"Talk"? 21:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But you see I wasn't to know it would be for a few minutes was I??? it could have been a new editor who is not up on wikifying. At the very least say under construction or something when you start the article to editors know you intend to iimprove it soon after creating <font style="color:#fef;background:navy;">♦ Sir Blofeld ♦      <font size="-4"><font color="Navy">"Talk"? 22:00, 28 August 2007 (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 09:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wang Ping (Wei officer)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wang Ping (Wei officer), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: :. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 15:33, 6 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 09:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sole
Hi Larry,

There's some more discussion at Talk:Sole (foot) regards the image. Also, you've an incredibly long talk page. Thought of archiving it? WLU 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts and Vandalism Insinuation
Hi Larry, I don't want to cause any trouble for either of us, however I do feel that the current discussion about the Pike article could be toned down. If you think I may be responsible for vandalism please follow the proper Wikipedia guidelines, otherwise there is no reason to mention it on the talk page in reference the discussion of my edits. I think most editors would recognize that as a form of accusation even if you didn't actually say "I think you vandalized the page." and suggest that is inappropriate. Just because I'm in Australia and someone from the same continent has vandalized the page is not "interesting". Please refrain from similar insinuations in the future. Thanks Master z0b 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)