User talk:Semperf/Archive1

GHe's RfA


Thank you


Roman-Spartan War
If you don't mind could you please scan and send those pages to me please. My email address is kyriakosvelos@msn.com Kyriakos 00:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get it. Could please try sending it again. Kyriakos 00:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you download it from there? Kyriakos 00:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont worry I found it. Kyriakos 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the ISBN and the publishing details of the book? Kyriakos 01:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the article now. Can it get your support? Kyriakos 01:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please send me some info from M. Holleaux that would be useful for the article at my email address. Kyriakos 04:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate your nomination of the Fawn Brodie article to FA status. Best wishes,John Foxe 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copied your name after mine to make you co-nominator; I hope that's ok. Semperf 04:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I'm no longer surprised by inscrutable criticism.--John Foxe 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks thrice for nominating "Fawn Brodie." It's a better article for your nomination.--John Foxe 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics
Hello Semperf, I noticed your edit to Socionomics, and I'm not sure the change turned out the way you wanted it to. The first paragraph now looks like a copy and paste of the text immediately beneath, which is to say it's obviously redundant. I'll revert to the previous version if you're unable to get to it soon. FWIW, the notability of socionomics is part of a larger dispute now before the Arbitration Committee, though I don't know if they'll rule on the notability question itself. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 18:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Nabis Bibliography
Yes could you please sent me Gruen. Thanks. Please look at the Roman-Spartan War's talk page. Kyriakos 22:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War
Be more careful with your edits, you mishandle the content.Wandalstouring 23:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article's FAC you say to fix "as part of games of power". Where does it say that in the article and what else do we have to fix to gain your support. Kyriakos 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

some maps
,, wikiCommons Atlas

Map of Peloponnese
Hi Semperf, I found a map of the Peloponnese showing Las, Gythium, Sparta, Argos as well as most of the stops on the way which I had once placed in the article. Here is it. The only problem is that I think it has a copy right problem. Have a look and tell me what you think. Bye. Kyriakos 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Check sources
While you're at it. Could you check some sources for me:

Barceló Pedro A. Karthago und die Iberische Halbinsel vor den Barkiden: Studien zur karthagischen Präsenz im westlichen Mittelmeerraum von d. Gründung von Ebusus (VII. Jh. v. Chr.) bis zum Übergang Hamilkars nach Hispanien (237. v. Chr.) ISBN 3-7749-2354-X (used by the work below)

Ameling Walter (based on his postdoctoral lecture qualification) Karthago: Studien zu Militär Staat und Gesellschaft ISBN 3-406-374905

So far they seemed among the best material on Punic Carthage to get our Punic Wars articles somewhere off from the poor Livy POV-pushing what diehard patriots the Romans were. However, is there compareable English material I did not yet discover? (Goldsworthy is a bit questionable in my opinion, although he has to be included for completeness.) Wandalstouring 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * La civilisation phénicienne et punique, Manuel de recherche, Edited by Véronique Krings is a 1994 publication and contains some materials on Carthage. Unfortunately I have it nowhere within reach. The interesting point is that she seems to stress the influence of an import/export trade for Carthage. That totally contradicts my sources (inscriptions, postdoc theses, etc.) that could be summed up: small merchantmen sell glass, fish sauce and the like. big business nobility makes (captures foreign settlements) and sells slaves (higher profit margin, but costs for maintaining a professional armed force) Now I'm not quite sure if someone uses that source correctly for his arguments. Perhaps you have the possibility to clarify this issue in Punic military forces. Thanks Wandalstouring 13:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it helps. thank you. Wandalstouring 17:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please put my comments back
Semperf, unless you can cite chapter and verse of a policy for your actions, I insist that you please restore the comments about process to the project page. Organizing the votes for the sake of readability is fine, but moving relevant comments to a less visible page is not. Other editors who may yet vote could easily miss the issues I raise. Furthermore, you are a party to those issues, thus you should not be the one who moves the comments about them. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 16:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted the refactoring. Here is a recent talk page thread why refactoring into pro and con sides has turned out to be a bad idea. Overly long comments and meta discussions can still be moved to the talk page if they disrupt the content-specific discussion, but for AfD closers refactoring destroys transparency and the flow of discussions, so it is mostly counterproductive. This is in no way to imply that you did it in bad faith. I tried to make sure that my reversion didn't destroy content, but if you added material and I missed it, please let me know. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. As I said to Rg, this is a wiki: if you don't like something I've changed, change it back!   Semperf 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Batchelor-Ramyar research
Semperf, I've believed all along that the Batchelor-Ramyar research had to do Elliott waves and not socionomics, but saying as much only would have made a dispute with another editor go from nuclear... well, to something worse. That dispute is no small part of why the article seems so slapdash.

If you plan to include that research in Elliott wave principle, I would like to discuss the edits with you on the talk page. My deathmatch didn't spill over to the Elliott article, hence it's in far better condition than socionomics. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 01:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

From the Elliott wave principle talk page
 * I really don't like this idea of user:Rgfolsom declaring an "unspoken" ceasefire, however I have mixed feelings about editing while mediation, Rfd or RfA is going on. To my mind it just shows some politeness to those making the decision(s) not to keep on changing the articles, and possibly confusing the issue or adding new issues, to not edit while the process is going on.  My major reason for not editing has just been a lack of time, which will (finally!) be alleviated for at least this next weekend.


 * On the other hand, moving a deleted section from one article to another, that has not been directly at issue, seems easy enough to keep straight. There are also opinions like User:Semperf's that abstaining is not a good idea, and it does not seem to be even recommeded in RfD and RfA rules.  I'm also wondering whether administrators think that if there is a "cease-fire" then the problem has gone away.  It definitely hasn't.  I may limit myself to 2 or 3 edits (that should be noncontroversial) this weekend.  Any reasonable feedback welcomed.  Smallbones 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Map
Hi Semperf, great work on the map. Thanks for all your work. Thanks again. Kyriakos 12:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Semperf/sandbox

WP:FAC
Hi, Semperf - just a note about how to correctly indicate Support or Oppose votes at FAC. On Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military, you have entered four different Oppose "votes", each of them bolded. Correct procedure is to only "vote" once, and bold it once. Your four bolded votes make it appear, on quick glance, that the article has four different editors opposing the FAC. Can you please go and change your three subsequent oppposes to the more correct Comment? Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting on that so fast :-) Did you mean to go from four opposes to no oppose?  You left only comments - just checking.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

.

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military
Hello there. You have made several objections tot he article Campaign history of the Roman military being a featured article, at the page Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military. I am working to correct as many problems pointed out by other editors as possible. I was wondering if you would please be able to respond to the two points below as responded to on that page to your comments:
 * Bibliography quality - If you are unhappy with the existing bibliography, perhas you could suggest soe alternative works
 * Lack of consistency with capitals - I posted a response several days ago asking what you meant by this, I don't understand, perhaps again you could give an example

Thank you - PocklingtonDan 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 populate 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)
 * I would be grateful if you were able to revisit the article now and see if it was now in such a condition that you were able to remove your oppose vote, even if you felt unable to support it. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 17:44, 9 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) 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The first stage of it would merely be copy and pasting what is in your campaign article. Then it would be possible to incrementally improve the list and (presumably) all related articles.  I've made a first stab at format here: User_talk:Semperf/ListRomanCampaigns Semperf 14:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing battles and primary sources seems OK. It seems a bit problematic to me that a single battle itself can have quite a lot of secondary works. Do you intent on listing them all in that small box? Wandalstouring 15:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Perhaps instead of a box for secondary sources, footnotes should be used.   Semperf 16:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Footnotes need less space, but the readability suffers and I imagine the resulting layout might look rather strange. One solution could be to create a line underneath each battle where you list secondary works. To distinguish these from the battles itself you could use different background colors. However, I don't understand how the maintainance of this box is intended to work. It seems to me that everybody can add what he/she thinks appropriate secondary literature (and quite a lot of editors seem not to be aware of what that is). You could use an unprinted comment like this:


 * To make things easier to understand. Wandalstouring 16:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine this working using templatesl, much like campaignbox. Ie for each campaign you decide once which are the best reference works etc, and then substitute this template at the foot of all relevant articles. You could combine the two ideas above by listing just the author name and book title of each relevant reference work next to each battle in a table, with a footnote or similar linking to a full evaluation including publisher details etc lower down. That way, even though multiple battles might share one source, you would have to give the full details only once for each work. What do you think? This is obviously something that could be done on a massive scale for all MILHIST articles, similar to the practice of campaignboxes. The use of templates would mean you would only have to add the template to your watchlist, not all the articles the template was used in, in order to watch for people listing new works etc. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it only need to appear on a single article (the list of battles), though? It wouldn't really make sense to paste in bits of such a table on the individual battle articles themselves, since those will normally document the sources in far greater detail anyways.  So you wouldn't need templates for that.
 * (The evaluations of sources are really more for editors; Wikipedia isn't, really, a book review site. The details can be provided within individual articles, but only if the historiography is notable.) Kirill Lokshin 18:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Annotated biography
I have watched your comments in FA reviews about the quality of sources. You do have a valid point with your criticism. However, an editor submitting his work for FAC may feel like slapped with a baseball bat when confronted with such problems 'out of the blue'. So we coordinators developed a possible solution to this problem by introducing a task force based annotated bibliography(Kirill says an earlier projectwide trial has flopped). You can find an example in the Early Modern warfare task force. My hope is that we can provide a guide for editors on an earlier level of article development and avoid spiritual turbulences all around the globe.

Please use this form and list it in the section Resources on task force pages of the MilHistProject if you help with the creation of such bibliographies.

Annotated bibliography
Please use the following format when adding works:
 * Content:
 * Reviews:
 * Editor evaluation:
 * Reviews:
 * Editor evaluation:
 * Editor evaluation:

And don't take it too personally, this step was really necessary on the long run because we do want to provide quality articles with our FAs. Greetings Wandalstouring 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stubsort
Just to let you know, Cuba is not in South America. It is in the Caribbean and almost always considered geographically North American. This in reference to your edit to Celia Hart.--Thomas.macmillan 21:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War
Hey Semperf, good job on the Nabis article. Can you please have a look at the Roman-Spartan War and see if you can support the article. Thanks. Kyriakos 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether you have anything about the Cretan pirates at hand. I think Pompey invaded their island during his campaign against pirates and freed some 'Romans'. This might help to highlight why the Romans did have an interest in restricting the naval bases of the Cretan pirates in Lacedaemonia. Wandalstouring 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kyriakos. I'm in the process of striking some of my comments that are no longer relevant or that I no longer care about.
 * One of the things that still needs to be fixed is in the formatting of references:
 * in italics with the double-single-quotemark , but the italic is not ended with another, but with a single double-quotemark ("). The result is this: Holleaux, Rome and the Mediterranean; 218-133 B.C", 190.'' This needs to be fixed.


 * Also, is there no way to replace the Smith?  Semperf 14:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't think so. Smith gives facts that I have not been able to find in other sources. Kyriakos 20:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

List-forms for List of wars and battles
I have thrown together several possible examples of how to organize a list of wars and battles:
 * User_talk:Semperf/ListRomanCampaigns1
 * User_talk:Semperf/ListRomanCampaigns2
 * User_talk:Semperf/ListRomanCampaigns2b
 * User_talk:Semperf/ListRomanCampaigns3
 * User_talk:Semperf/ListRomanCampaigns4


 * User talk:Wandalstouring list 1 my suggestion Wandalstouring 17:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Originally, I also opted for 2b.
 * Scientific literature should be printed with fat letters to distinguish it from the content.
 * Whether or not the dates should be seperated from the battle is a question of taste and I can live with both versions. Having seperate dates might make it easier for someone searching for dates. On the other hand place and date (in parentheses) of a battle is the common disambiguation form (especially for Greece where they had just a few spots for such happenings).
 * Blue is generally prefered as background color in wikipedia (something like a trademark).
 * You could improve the ancient source section if you provide links to the text in wikisource, Project Gutenberg, or Lacus Curtius. Wandalstouring 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of it now (Military campaigns of the Samnite Wars)? Semperf 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, although I wonder whether 'remarks' is the best diction. Wandalstouring 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was wondering a bit about your scope. Campaign history doesn't quite fit and the last time I argued for a list approach on the subject my vote was utterly outnumbered. Perhaps renaming it 'List of scientific literature on Foo' would better fit the content.
 * The ancient sources could be linked to a full title version because not all readers will be familiar with every acronym. You can perhaps modify our Harvard reference system used in T-34 for this purpose. Wandalstouring 21:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts, etc.
Semperf,

I made edits in addition to reverting some of the content in Elliott wave principle, something you apparently didn't check to see. You may also have failed to notice that I typically explain what I'm doing on the talk page, and sometimes ask other editors questions. Since you yourself saw fit to make a straight revert, perhaps you can also have a look at some of my questions that remain unanswered -- such as what makes Paulos a reliable source, and why "pseudoscience" is attached to a topic that is part of a program recognized by the SEC, NASD, and NYSE. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 19:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read what revert says -- including, "If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it." And (again), I've been asking for days why Paulos is a reliable source. I have yet to get an answer. WP:EQ says


 * Argue facts, not personalities.
 * Don't ignore questions.


 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.


 * Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.

The way I see it, the other editor in question argues personalities instead of facts, won't provide good reasons for edits, and ignores questions. You've ignored my questions as well. I'll be sure to note "revert" next time. Now, perhaps, you can take WP:EQ as seriously as you take WP:REVERT. Thanks. --Rgfolsom 22:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat my request for you to respect WP:EQ and reply candidly to the numerous issues I've raised on Talk:Elliott wave principle. Until then, "less biased version" amounts to "allegation without evidence." --Rgfolsom 21:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Semperf,

Thanks for the help in editing Elliott wave. It has done a world of good (for me) having a third party there. I do think that I will sit out a while. As I said before, I'm somewhat uncomfortable editing while a proceeding is going on. I think now the ArbCom will come to a close in due course and my points are understood. Seeing Rgfolsom do his stuff on others (sorry that that had to include you!) will likely convince them that it's not just me that has some problems with this.

I'll likely go back there in a month or so and will probably edit it keeping WP:FRINGE in mind. Having somebody look at (or checking) my work would certainly be a help - after all I have been formally accused of bias.

Thanks again.

Smallbones 14:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Semperf, I just like to thank you for all your work helping me improve the Roman-Spartan War and by sending me sources which lasted FA today. Once again thanks. Kyriakos 08:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

EVP
Hey, I saw the edit you made - there are proposals for a rewrite of the opening at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon/sandbox, your input and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I support the edit you made and would be fine with you leaving it...but I'd bet someone else would revert it before long.--Milo H Minderbinder 15:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pdf on cretan pirates
I'm struggling a bit with it, but will hopefully finish the article soon. Wandalstouring 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I worked through the text two times, but I couldn't quite figure out what to use on Roman-Spartan War. It is about treaties to have areas safe from Cretan pirates (possibly via a kind of ransom) and the problem is whether or not these treaties were made with individual Cretan cities or with the koinos. Similar treaties are the ones between Rome and Carthage before the Punic Wars for example, although in this case both sides seem to have had the potential to pray on each other (in case of Rome it were likely the allies). Wandalstouring 02:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Offer of book scans
Hi semperf, I saw your post on structural history of the roman military regarding possibility of providing texts or scans of texts to help improve the article. These would be invaluable and I would love to get hold of anything you are able to provide. This is the next article I am going to be working on to try and bring up to FA standard. Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Semper:
 * Webster - ch. 3 looks very useful
 * Gabba, - chs. I,II look very useful
 * Davies - hard to tell from TOC what has info on structure but as an aside this looks to have some interesting general info, may have to buy this if its still in print. Doesn't seem to have anything immediately relevant to the strctural history article though.
 * Brisson, all of it looks useful. My French is conversational rather than technical however so I'm not sure to what degree I would struggle with comprehension.

Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I appreciate the effort taken, and I've got no problem waiting until they are ready. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the files. I downloaded one without problem, the other is currently unavailable but I shall try again later. Thanks for your help. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Semperf, I am still unable to retrieve the Gabba text. If it is under 10mb or so feel free to just email it to me directly. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, file now received - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy talk 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Smith, Service in Post-marian army == ==

Hi Dan, I noticed that I also have a copy of R.E. Smith, Service in the post-Marian Roman Army, which I think will be very helpful for the late Republic. If you don't have access to it, I can lend you a scan. semper fictilis 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi semperf, that would be great if you were able to scan it pelase yes, thanks PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks semperf, received the file fine. Thanks very much for your help. If you come across anything else, especially on the mlitary from 150 AD onwards please let me know - I'm really struggling to find good sources of info on this later period. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I think of those you listed the first two look the most promising if you wouldn't mind scanning TOCs for them or similar?
 * Cambridge Ancient History, 1st ed., vol. xii Imperial Crisis has a section on "The Army and its Transformation"
 * E. Birley, Roman Britain the the Roman Army (1961)
 * Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC: Maximus the Confessor
I have responded to your request for a theology section for FAC Maximus. Please check the article and see if this now meets the FA criteria. Thanks for your helpful comments, I think they have made for a better article. -- Pastordavid 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments on the FAC for Maximus the Confessor. The discussion has closed, and the article has been promoted to Featured Article status.  I think the article was greatly improved through the comments and suggestions offered in the nomination process, and was happy to see the process work so well.  Again, thanks.  -- Pastordavid 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

look, to be frank...
that wasnt a test. i know how to edit wiki. the revolvers mechanism, octoganal barrel, grip, and hammer were exactly like a webley. if i know one thing, its guns. so dont question my knowledge on the subject of firearms unless you know me, but you dont know me. i know what i'm talkin about. i used to have a webley. okay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.34.65 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:ATT
You might (or might not) be interested to know that I quoted one of your comments at Wikipedia talk:Attribution --Coppertwig 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Prod tags
Hi, I noticed that you had removed several of my prod tags with the same comment about allowing a merge discussion to run its course. I don't know if you're aware, but many of the proposed merges that you are suggesting should run their course have been outstanding for over 6 months. In fact, they came to my attention as I was attempting to clear the merge backlog of proposals from early 2006. In one case, there wasn't even a discussion about the merge or any talk page discussion of any kind. In future, if you feel you need to monitor my prod tagging, I would appreciate it if you would leave some specific comments on the articles talk page if you feel it necessary to dispute the tagging. Alan.ca 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits
Thanks for catching the error (demoocracy - lol) - Iranians are already angry at the movie and the article. No need to get cows involved as well. Arcayne 21:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Thanks for the revert on the Esko Lähtevänoja article. I really appreciate it. Chris 14:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Clawson RfA
Regarding this, I'd have preferred seeing this put in an more impartial way. No doubt JohnHistory's behaviour is not acceptable. But after all, the opposing users in the RfA seem to recognize Clawson's failure to assume good faith with him, and to understand several other policies, for that matter (for example CIVIL and BITE). Of course I won't add another annotation there, but I still wanted to mention it. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * JohnHistory is obviously a problem user, but considering his total lack of basic markup/formatting skills and process/policy knowledge, I don't really believe he is a sockpuppet. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

no admin?
Just saw your AIV report, good opportunity (with DefCon 2) to point out that I was convinced you were already an admin. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang in there, you can't be far from ready. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a tiny favour
I see that you're a german speaking member. Could you help me and tell me what these few lines of text mean? A user left them for me and I fear that its an abusive message, as he has done so before. If so, I will report the user: "Also aber rathe ich euch, meine Freunde: misstraut Allen, in welchen der Trieb, zu strafen, mächtig ist! Das ist Volk schlechter Art und Abkunft; aus ihren Gesichtern blickt der Henker und der Spürhund. Misstraut allen Denen, die viel von ihrer Gerechtigkeit reden! Wahrlich, ihren Seelen fehlt es nicht nur an Honig. Und wenn sie sich selber 'die Guten und Gerechten' nennen, so vergesst nicht, dass ihnen zum Pharisäer Nichts fehlt als — Macht!"

thanks for your help, --Matt57 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks a lot. --Matt57 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my Request for Administration
I'm happy to say that thanks in part to your support, my RfA passed with a unanimous score of 40/0/0. I solemnly swear to use these shiny new tools with honour and insanity integrity. --Wafulz 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA.--Anthony.bradbury 10:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why you be hatin'
I happened to agree with the changes made today to the New college page considering that the building is grotesque and poorly designed - perhaps edits in the article could articulate this.

Why is it vandalism?

You do not like one of my edits so it automatically becomes vandalism? I would venture to guess that you didn't read the article, also, I doubt very much that you have any idea about the facts of the case. I can't imagine why some people view Germans as arrogant and unreasonable.


 * Can you show me the article? I'm a curious German. Wandalstouring 17:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)