User talk:PocklingtonDan/Archive/2

DeleteAss
Great great idea but I would seriously suggest a diff name, perhaps DeletionBot, AFDBot or DELBot. Best. frummer 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehehe, yep probably a good idea :-P - PocklingtonDan 10:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DelBot sounds the bestest to me. best. ;) frummer 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Delbot is inspired, always been a fan of Only Fools and Horses :-) - PocklingtonDan 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Punic military forces
To keep you busy ;). I will start to turn the former Carthaginian army - now Punic military forces into a real article(I hope I have read enough of Livy by now; I really started to dislike him). Are you interested in joining? Wandalstouring 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Do you have a copy of "Carthage: A History" by Serge Lancel? It's meant to be an excellent secondary source that uses archaeological results as well as the primary sources. I'm having trouble locating a copy. - PocklingtonDan 23:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will visit the Bavarian State Library tomorrow. If this book is on our side of the Atlantic I'll get it. Wandalstouring 00:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Bot
Hi Dan - I've always thought that there should be a notification bot that informs contributors to an article when that article is up for deletion or is in deletion review. I ran across your PocKleanBot and now think such an AfD bot is possible. What do you think? (If the AfD Bot has already been suggested, please point me to the discussion.) Thanks. -- Jreferee 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a bot is unfortunately unlikely to get approval since the bot approval group seem to consider bot-generated user-page messages as "spam" regardless of how well-intentioned they are. Both PockKleanBot and DeleteAsstBot (which aimed to help with the afd process) had to be pulled after failing aproval. - PocklingtonDan 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the deletion process could be more automated. Bot-generated user-page AfD and Deletion Review talk page messages would not be spam since each process permits notification talk page messages.  For example, per how to list pages for deletion, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. Also, step 3 of the steps to list a new deletion review requires that the poster inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding PAGE_NAME on their user talk page.  If you were to develop a DelNotifBot that implemented the allowed AfD and DR talk page notifications, I would be more than willing to work with you to get it approved.  Once DelNotifBot is approved, it may be easier to get approval for new features to that approved bot to increase the automation of the deletion process.-- Jreferee 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Proofread
Hi PocklingtonDan

Could you proofread and perhaps correct the writing of Roman-Spartan War before I'm going to get my fillip at FAC.

Thanks Wandalstouring 19:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I'll check it out now - PocklingtonDan 20:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi PocklingtonDan, I'm working with Wandalstouring on this article and I'm wondering do you think it can pass FAC. And thanks for your copy-editting. :) Kyriakos 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, it needs a lot of copy-editing. Its a fantastic article, but a rough diamond - needs a bit of polishing, I'll be doing my best to help out over the next day or two. When I'm done copyediting I'll post a mini-review on the talk page of the article if you wish of anything I think could do with improving to make it an FA. The best of the recent FAC articles I have seen recently is Alcibiades, I think its use of side boxes, its structure, its organisation of external links, everything, should be used as an example f what to strive for. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 23:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check Pericles(it is a series of articles on Greek personalities made after a similar scheme). This images for primary sources and bulleted lists for secondary sources is quite a good idea in my opinion, all the paintings are quite questionable, but someone must mention them somewhere and it makes things more colourful. When you check out the source of the article you will notice that the notes chapter is quite ill constructed, it could have been done much clearer with
 * What is missing is a map of his residence(small castle) and private zone of influence in Chersonne. Someone pointed out that there are ongoing discussion about a possible psychiatric disorder. So far the article looks really good. Wandalstouring 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What is missing is a map of his residence(small castle) and private zone of influence in Chersonne. Someone pointed out that there are ongoing discussion about a possible psychiatric disorder. So far the article looks really good. Wandalstouring 01:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Kyriakos 01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

SI units
I understand than in Anglophone countries, for mysterious reasons, you still use these bizarre units. I seem that even Australians have stopped to use them, haven't they? However, this being an international encyclopedia, I this is acceptable when SI units are present while imperial units aren't, not viceversa. But I admit I omitted the conversion as it was too tiring (formats such as .0032" are too much for me). Bye, good work and Roma victoriosa semper!. --Attilios 17:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peeping Tom
The IMDb records that Powell was the producer. Nat Cohen was something like the executive producer. That's the usual way of interpreting a "presented by" credit. -- SteveCrook 18:00, 23 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 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Country label on certain articles
An addition "in the United States" was placed in an article about Lake Willoughby in Vermont. I can appreciate avoiding confusion, particularly since many US places deliberately copied names from England, and other countries. However, the only way one would normally get to "Lake Willoughby" is through a higher level link which does have "United States" in it. I don't have a problem with (essentially) disambiguation through correct national labeling of places, but would hate to see too many articles with national names in them. For example, do I need to be told that the "British Museum" is in the UK? Or Albert Hall, London is in the UK? (Haven't checked. They may be "correct" already! :)Student7 15:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page - PocklingtonDan 18:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oi
Oi LeanneMillington 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes? - PocklingtonDan 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not make insultive edits. I am an administrator, you may be banned. LeanneMillington 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "insultive edit" you are referring to. Please post a link to the edit - PocklingtonDan 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dont play stupid with me PocklingtonDan. Do Not make insultive edits. LeanneMillington 19:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing stupid. If I have made an insultive edit, post the link to it for me to see. Otherwise, stop harassing me - PocklingtonDan 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can an admin please examine user LeanneMillington, who claims to be an admin and is claiming I have made "insultive edits", which I have not done. I suspect this user is a troll and needs to be banned - PocklingtonDan 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore The Above, Nonsense. JFBurton 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain? - PocklingtonDan 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, just an abusive user with a history of silliness. Claims to be an admin. And it says she is on her user page. I dont know how she got to be one, judging by her behaviour. JFBurton 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I consider her behaviour disruptive and have requested admin assitance. Thanks - PocklingtonDan 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you DID make an insultive edit? LeanneMillington 19:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just report her if she gets too much. JFBurton 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignore this user. Please do not respond to the attacks. Report to WP:ANI if you've asked her more than twice to stop personal attacks and pretending to be an admin. Xiner (talk, email) 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD notification
Surely it would be more logical to inform the creator of the article, rather than the last account to have edited it: especially when that account is actually a 'bot. Alai 22:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Help request - formatting notes in multiple columns
I'm trying to format Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_military into multiple columns (3 columns) due to the size of the list - there are currently several screens full of nothing but long a long scrolling list of citations. I tried using Template:Reflist but it doesn't render in 3 columns in my browser (or the majority of browsers). Are there any other alternatives I can use to make the references appear in 2 or 3 columns or to otherwise drastically reduce the screen estate taken up by the citations? Thanks - PocklingtonDan 11:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any way to do multi columns other than the one you mentioned, but you should use named refs. There are a lot of duplicate refs that are unnecessary. See WP:FOOT. --Sopoforic 11:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at what I did to ref #8 to see what I mean. --Sopoforic 11:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahah, thanks, I didn't know about that one, will incorporate that system, thanks - PocklingtonDan 11:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, while you're doing it, you should move the footnote markers after the punctuation. They go after periods, commas, semicolons, etc. and before dashes. That's listed on WP:FOOT too, in case you forget which way they go--I checked myself before writing this. --Sopoforic 11:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That latter is actually just the American style of punctuation, I was always taught the opposite in the UK! - PocklingtonDan 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

bad day?
sorry but somehow it seems like you had a bad day. Well, I can understand that there are quite a lot of issues with the Roman military that need to be discussed etc. but it is also one of the most difficult tasks you could choose and somehow you presumeably have a real life to handle besides doing research for wikipedia. All in all I wanted to tell you take a wikibreak, do some sport and come back with fresh power and a different point of view. Wandalstouring 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What the?
Dan! What's going on, what's happening! what's happened! I had to work today. I get back to the article and holy smoke! You ARE having a bad day. First, I agree with sandygeorgia's rv of your article. It is MUCH better than the short version. If this is how you are going to react I take it all back. Don't make it shorter. Leave the notes just as they are. I knew in my bones this would happen. All I have really are minor edits. If you will put it back I will just recommend it as it is (long form). What did it for you, buddy? Was it my comments on British English? I was half joking, you know. For goodness sake. No, if I thought you were going to react this way I would have just gone through and made the minor punctuation corrections and taken out the ",then," myself. Ignore my comments. Remember, I said the problem with comments is they always get taken the wrong way. Tsk tsk tsk. This is terrible. Do we have to lose such a good article so quick? It isn't fair. Put the article back. Take a break. One of the reasons you have not heard more on this article is that it is a good article. We just leave good stuff alone. At this point in my editing I always take a break. The world is so many and I am so few. Discretion is the better part of valor. If I read you correctly I do not think you will be happy just giving up on this thing. So, just put it back and let it cook for a bit. Perhaps we will put it back for you. Later after you resolve your feelings you can just pick it up again.Dave 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

More from Dave
Well I poked around a little bit and found a little more about it, but not that much. As far as I can discern, I think I can say that we are very fond of you, buddy, and wish you would come back. Come back to us. Everyone does have bad days you know. I've been reading about the bad days of Louis Leakey and he sure makes me feel better about my bad days. Maybe I should have taken more of a hand commenting to your commenters; for example, one fellow was asking for more historical analysis. But this isn't the place for historical analysis. The article is mainly to tie together all the other articles; i.e., it's a pointer. I understand your frustration very well. There is a certain level of "noise" inherent in Wikipedia. I've had to deal with quite a lot of it myself but I try to keep my eye on the articles. Every once in a while a Dan Pocklington comes along to restore my hope that tangled webs do get unwoven. Otherwise what do we have? An opportunity to say nasty things on the Internet, generously provided by Jimmy Wales. When I start looking at the barnstars of the administrators I see the same sort of thing for each one: thanks for your persistence through thick and thin. I would like to see you as on vacation. When you get back just revert your page and tell us you are back and pursue your old interests, maybe with more space for yourself. Come back.Dave 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wandalstouring, Dave, apologies
My wikistress levels peaked yesterday after I seemed to be fighting a hydra with a thicket of heads - every time I addressed one issue with the article, another two popped up. I unforunately took it out on the poor article. I have now reverted it to its full version and made some more work on it this morning. - PocklingtonDan 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I have several hydras myself and sometimes the best you can do is let them live until you are thoroughly prepared to kill them. In the meantime the assessment system keeps them at bay. Pushing all articles forward at the same time tends to end up in disaster. Wandalstouring 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back, Dan! Where's that nice user page you used to have?Dave 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC reply
I just want to make clear that I added a lot of "good ideas" which I thought would make the article better but in the end aren't of great importance. I do think you really need to make sure that we know how those maps were created to be sure that they are verifiable and I don't think there should be any supports without that. You didn't comment on it in your reply so--just posting here to make sure you notice it. I will try to contact the image creators and see if they can shed more light and maybe save you some work. gren グレン 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have responded in the nomination discussion now, I think I missed this before. I agree with you absolutely that images should be as thoroughly cited as text - any help you can provide towards this is appreciated. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 21:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Military history
Hi Dan. Thanks for your note. We probably got off on the wrong foot the other day; my apologies if I misbehaved. As you can probably tell, I have serious misgivings about the article's conception, especially the idea of having one article on 1300 years of wars and battles, another on 1300 years of tactical evolution, etc., etc. If I had been involved in that decision, I would have argued for chronological divisions: early Rome, middle Republic, Punic Wars, etc., with narrative history illustrating the evolution of tactics, logistics, and strategics. But it is a bit late for that, and since I'm not inclined to get involved myself in these articles, it is probably best if I bite my tongue.

On sources, I have a different view about what good references are supposed to be doing. Ideally, they are not merely to identify some authority to which fact x can be attributed. They should also be suggestions for further exploration. The reader that wants to know about Pyrrhus can look at your footnote and find there the best things to read. Rather than Grant's History of Rome (which is one small book covering all Roman history) or Lane Fox's The Classical World (again, one small, general book on the whole of Classical history and literature), you might try N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus, 1967, or Franke in the Cambridge Ancient History. Or the work of E.T. Salmon on Samnium rather than Grant and Lane Fox.

This, however, is not a few days work, but a few weeks or months. But if it were done properly, we'd have created a resource that would be of great use to people. (I have quite a good private ancient history library and live not far from a good university library. So if there is anything you need, I might be able to scans to you.)

On capitalization, it seems to be mostly fixed: the Goldsmith article is the only thing I see now that is out of sync with the rest.

Best wishes, Semperf 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the lengthy reply.


 * The other day was entirely my fault, my wikistress levels had peaked and I hadn't stopped editing in time.


 * You are correct that I have been providing references purely as cites for facts stated in the article. I understand the point you make about further exploration, and I would normally list these separately in a "further reading" section. Since you seem to have access to a far wider range of sources than myself, I would be most grateful if you were willing to populat such a section towards the end of the article, pointing out further reading materials for some of the more prominent campaigns mentioned. I would rather keep this separate from the issue of cites per se. - such specialist works go into much greater detail than is needed from an article that aims to give an overview at a high level.


 * I would be incredibly grateful for any source materials that you feel would be useful in the ongoing development of the article, but perhaps more so on the structural development of the Roman military, which is where I intend to turn my attention next after bringing this article to the level I want to, featured or not.


 * Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dan - done. There are some other instructions here which might help, but I can do it any time. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Campaign history of the Roman military: support and compliments
I've striked that one comment and have read the other comments. I cannot come up with any reasons to withhold my support. I have checked the edit history of the page. My compliments for the hard work:
 * Thanks! - PocklingtonDan 21:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the barnstar and kudos for grinding through a long FAC. I can only guess at the scope of what you're working on here, as it's not a subject I fathom. But I do know that the more substantial a job you do, the more resistance you encounter. That's the whole FAC paradox: it's easier to make lightweight articles that pass "trivially", if you will, because anybody can "source" some web links and pretty it up. Now I'm way off topic... but good job. – Outriggr § 02:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --Mais oui! 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What personal attack? Can you provide a link to the edit? I find your uncited threat to block me offensive. I also note from your tlak page that you have been recently warned for a 3RR revert, so your credibility with me is currently zero. - PocklingtonDan 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Campaign history of the Roman military - questions
Let's see:


 * It's more of a lack-of-time thing than a conscious decision to not comment on FACs. I'll try to add some comments when I get a chance.
 * As far as actual fact-checking: try looking through the Classical warfare task force for some likely names. Off the top of my head, oldwindybear knows a lot about Roman military history, but I'm not sure how easy it will be for you to catch him when he's active.
 * Thanks for the response. I've tried oldwindybear and he said he would try but nothing in the last week, its difficult to find him online these days. I tried contacting everyone in classical task force with an expressed knowledge of Rome but most of these editors are no longer active. No worries, just would have been nice to have someone double-check the basic facts rather than bickering over stylistic changes and punctuation! - PocklingtonDan 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Annotated bibliography
We have created a new form for annotated bibliographies. Feel invited to contribute in the Classical warfare task force for example. Greetings Wandalstouring 11:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Rintrah
Yeah, User:Rintrah. But first, I really think you should try to summarise a few sections and shift the current, detailed information to daughter articles. Tony 12:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FAC
I've removed my oppose from the FAC. Obviously there are still improvements to be made, but that can be said about any article. You asked that I work on the article's bibliography and further reading, which I suppose I could do. I wonder, however, whether a list might not be useful, which laid out in a table: wars and battles, together with ancient sources and secondary literature. The process of putting that list together would help with the campaign history article. Semperf 14:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be a heck of an undertaking but would be inavulable resource for a lot of articles - see WikiProject_Military_history/Classical_warfare_task_force that Wandalstouring has been working on for a similar idea, giving a mini summary and review of each work - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've continued this at my page. Semperf 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on getting the article to FA. Kyriakos 01:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't think I had realised quite how much work was involved, its tough to get an article to FA status! Thanks for your comments. I will keep working on the article - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratualtions! Looks like I was two days too late (been rather innactive of late), but it made due without my thumbs up, anyway. Saw some good comments on the maps, any editor that undertakes that is going to have his hands full for a while but a consistent setting would defintily help the wikicommunity, perhaps your demand will get the ball rolling. --Dryzen 16:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me too
I just saw the gold star on the article. Congrats, Dan! An elephant's faithful 100 %. I definitely abstract the grandeur of Roman history from this article. I can see why Justinian did not wish to let Rome slide away. Criticisms are over. I for one will not touch a gold-star article. At some point I will be doing more with others of the set. You can't be everywhere at once. Take a break.Dave 02:42, 14 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 14:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Creating a bot page
Howdy Dan... I left some feedback on the creating a bot project talk page... as I stated there, I can't help with the main crux of the project, but feel free to let me know if I can help otherwise. Thanks! -- eykanal talk 15:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: MILHIST reviews and FAC
Well, the most obvious place where all the current reviews are listed is WPMILHIST Announcements. :-) Kirill Lokshin 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a bit more to it than that, actually:
 * Peer reviews are generally (a) fairly long in duration and (b) fairly numerous, and thus need their own page.
 * A-Class reviews are (a) quite short in duration and (b) quite rare; much of the time, we don't actually have any running. Given that they're basically a part of the assessment system, it seems logical to just have them on the assessment page (which is very low-traffic, and can reasonably be watchlisted) directly.
 * FACs are a somewhat subtler issue. They're not a review internal to the project, but an "official" Wikipedia-wide one.  Given that there have already been complaints that MILHIST members are too supportive of each others' articles on FAC, actually transcluding the debates onto a project page may be pushing things a little too far.
 * Kirill Lokshin 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, thinking about this some more: what if we had a single combined page (mockup) rather than separate pages for each type of review? That would give you a single place to watch, but also avoid the appearance of trying to stack a particular external process. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Structural history of the Roman military
I have a problem with the auxilia units. They could be anything that helped the Romans to win, including foreigners who fought for money = mercenaries especially Gallic and Germanic nobles as cavalry), but also for little money, but citizenship after surviving the onslaught (Iberians, Cretan archers, Rhodian and Balearian slingers, ...) Do you have an idea how we explain this. Especially I doubt that the nobles in Caesars (Germanic cavalry) and Crassus (Gallic cavalry) were cheap, while it is stated that the common auxilia soldier received half the pay. Any ideas? Wandalstouring 15:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Wandals, I saw a couple of your edits and that you'd noticed I'd turned my attentions to this article. It in a very early stage at the moment so a lot of the information might be questionable. With regards to the auxilia, I think you are asking why they were cheaper than the legionaries. I think the answer is that whilst their basic pay was perhaps as expensive or maybe even more expensive, the legionaries were granted donatives (eg when a new emperor came to power) as well as large pensions and land on retirement - I think it was this long-term cost of each legionary that made them so comparably expensive, not that their standard pay was any more. Also, legionaries were more heavily armed and armoured and their equipment was expensive, especially their armour. I'm not sure if auxilia received their equipment from the ROman state, but certianly the later numeri and foederati would not have done. I think it also seems that whilst legions were raised and kept at a state of full readiness (ie permanently funded) at least some of the non-legionary troops were raised only as required. There is also the mindset that auxilia troops were of lower quality - Luttwak argues that the Romans purposefully maintained "escalation dominance" - ie purposefully never armed their auxiliary troops in the most expensive ways so that the legions could always defeat them should the auxiliaries mutiny. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So far I agree. That they had equal salary with the legionaries receiving some additional allowance makes sense for the esprit de corps. What makes me wonder is the pay for the auxilia cavalry. The whole argument about arming them not equally good as the non-existing Roman cavalry is a bit flawed. Could you do some research on them, because they were an essential part of the Roman rule: they were nobles and commanded the others to fight if they decided to become insurgents (Vercingetorix and the like) and there was no Roman armed unit that could match their speed nor quality (they had only feet to walk, mules to carry and some officers on horses). Wandalstouring 16:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gothic armies
We have a newbee who is interested in writing the article about Gothic armies, however, he seems to need some help. Perhaps you can give him a bit of advice (literature, article structure, etc.) because these tribal armies have a bit to do with your beloved Roman military. :D Cheers Wandalstouring 22:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look and see if I can help him out with article structure etc - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DeleteAsstBot
Hey dan I'm sorry to see your bot recently got turned down for approval. I coincidentally am pitching a very similar idea at Bot requests at the moment and just now stumbled upon your bot realizing yet again someone beat me to the punch. Anyway, I think I have some ideas that solve the complaints about your existing bot idea, although it would result in a completely different front end. Rather than user's filling out your very pretty form, they'd have to write (paste) a line of jargon, but the benefit is you don't have to worry about the ip address issue, you get to see in the history which user added the tag and anon IPs can be ignored. My current suggestion which is already under fire is here, let me know what you think. Vicarious 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand the objections to DeleteAsstBot, even if I felt that the advantages of the bot outweighed any possible downsides. However, as you say your proposed solution does seem to sidestep the objections to my proposed bot. I've posted a message of support at bot requests and would be able to help with coding if required. Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work/idea
Good work with the bot creation articles, this will encourage others to learn about bots and hopefully eventually write one.-- Andeh 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article submission: Campaign_history_of_the_Roman_military
havent been on Wikipedia for over a month so just now logging on and received your message. I support the nomination. However the discussion page I went to says Do not change- archive only. Is the process closed as yet? If so what was the outcome? My comments:

Enriquecardova 04:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Article size: Article size at 120K is a problem, but it seems hard to significantly reduce it and get the "big picture" coverage desired. I think you may be able to shave 20-30K off by leaving out some maps, cutting bibliography etc, but you are still looking at a 90k article at least, well above the 50k guideline. Perhaps no maps will speed loading times for those on dial-up. Given the comprehensive coverage sought and the big subject matter, I think the size issue should not be a major negative factor. Other than that I think it is comprehensive and well written. I strongly support. A lot of work and cleanup went into it. Maybe you should think of also submitting other articles in the overall Roman group for submission.