User talk:Vedexent/archive2

"?) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I just figured out where said feedback was received.


 * My (strictly personal) advice would be to take the suggestions of the reviewer in question with a very large grain of salt; some of the points he makes are quite sillyâit's always a good thing to cite multiple sources, in particularâand he's espoused some rather... unusual... views in the past (e.g. here). Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Rome (TV series)
Thank you very much for your helpful feedback on the talk page about the episode list I was editing. You made a very good point on the formatting of other tables to match as well. Per your suggestion, I've been working on those too. Would you mind taking a peek at those additional tables and providing me feedback, yet again? They are now located on the same page as the original list, which in turn is located here.

Though I am hoping for any and all feedback, I also am in particular need of feedback on the multiple use of "no image" links under secondary characters. I personally don't like it and wondered if by chance you might have an idea. Should I merge the summary section for each, until a photo is found? (x-posted to the Rome talk page) MagnoliaSouth | Talk 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Third Servile War
Yep, that's why; I suspect it will pass easily once the issue brought up there has been fixed. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think it's a great article already. One thing that could be done to improve it is to expand the Aftermath section a little. Were there are discernible long-term consequences from this struggle? Right now the Aftermath mostly speaks about how the war helped Crassus and Pompey rise to positions of power. That is certainly important, but I was just wondering if there was anything else that could go there.


 * The other main thing is it needs a copyedit. Would you like me to give it one now?UberCryxic 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All-right I've given it a thorough copyedit, but I think my edits might have undone some of your most recent ones (there was an edit conflict apparently). Check to see if I changed anything too drastically and just change those portions back to the version you like.UberCryxic 16:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. And congratulations to you for writing such a great article. You will definitely have my support when this goes to FAC.UberCryxic 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, please feel free to put it up! (If there are any other issues with the article, I doubt you'll find them without subjecting it to the full FAC gauntlet, in any case.) Kirill Lokshin 14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox and "logic 101"
I haven't involved myself with this article for a while, but I saw your edit summary comments and took a look at the content of the edits in question. I'd like to point out that the content of your edits, and those that you're arguing against, do not match your comments. Your "opponent" is not stating that anything--a negative or otherwise--has been proven; he's only saying that the theory your edits describe is not supported by current science. Furthermore, It isn't correct to say that "a negative cannot be proven." Any statement, including a provable one, can be stated as a negative (the square root of 9 is not 42). Even the in type of speculation where people tend to bring up the cliche' that a negative cannot be proven, the cliche' is often incorrect. Those who believe there is a Loch Ness Monster might say "you can't prove it doesn't exist." But you can: just drain the lake and check for any monsters flopping around in the mud. KarlBunker 02:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: FAC comment
Hi Vedexent - yes you should take it as a compliment. I did want to read more, and maybe an "analysis" or future impact section would have been useful to add. I know the sources are limited, so its perfectly ok. Rama's arrow 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Servile War -results
Spartacus and Declining Slavery

will add more.

Wandalstouring 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wow
Thank you for your kind words! Kirill Lokshin 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: MACV-SOG
Thanks for the advice. As you can see, I was intelligent enough to follow some of it. Did some grad work in the subject area, but at the time (the mid-80s) there just wasn't enough primary source material out there. Worked on a history of the Joint Chief's involvement in the escalation period for my master's thesis instead. Have always been fascinated by the tantalizing puzzle of SOG. Spent years prying it apart and putting it back together again. RM Gillespie 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Citizendium.Project
Personally, I have no intentions of participating in Citizendium. Aside from the fact that I consider forks to be a bad idea in general (see below), I have no formal education in anything resembling history, so my participation there would necessarily be as a second-class citizen. I'd much rather work in an (admittedly flawed) system where everyone has at least the potential to work on an equal level than one where anyone without a suitably long CV is relegated to grunt work.

More generally, forks tend to be very drastic things. Not only is there a split of the community, but, more fundamentally, a split of the encyclopedia itself. Nobody will actually bother merging changes to one copy of the article into the other, because it would simply be too much work to keep them synchronized. Insofar as Wikipedia functions as a market externalityâin other words, where the benefit for someone to use it is proportional to the number of other usersâcreating a split version will lead to poorer-quality material in both, since the overall number of editors fixing things will be smaller in each case. (Although the flaws will likely be in different topic areas.)

(All this quite aside from the practical problems with Sanger's proposal. The requirement of using real names is extraordinarily problematic; the effect will be that articles which are controversialâparticularly where certain additions may provoke legal (or extra-legal!) reprisalsâwill simply be abandoned.)

Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm pretty sure this isn't the case; I vaguely recall that a majority (and perhaps as much as 80%) of anonymous edits are constructive. It's only a relatively small number of prominent articles that seem to attract large numbers of vandals; the vast majority of the article base has only occasional edits, most of which are genuninely helpful. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Without anonymous editors a lot of minor mistakes would not get fixed so quickly. Wandalstouring 11:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Starship Troopers & Portrayals of Mormons in popular media
You are correct that none of the main characters are Mormon, but in the book there is a whole Mormon colony that is described as being warned to evacuate, they don't, and they are slaughtered. In the movie it is instead shown as a short news bulletin, with the unmistakable Angel Moroni statue shown above the compound with the dead colonists strewn around. They don't play as major part in the story as they did in Heinlein's Sixth Column, but they are there. -- 71.35.41.92 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a text search of the book. The word "Mormon" is not in the text anywhere.


 * You may have an argument for the movie version, but Mormons are not mentioned in the book at all. - Vedexent (talk) - 05:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It was included in the movie because it was in the book. I don't have a "searchable" copy other that my 60's era hardcopy, so it'll take a while for me to find the exact page(s). I was unaware that it was legitimately available in electronic form at this time -- is it available online, and if so what is the URL? That might make it easier (and faster) for me to give you the citation that way, as we'd be looking at the same thing (page number getween the various printings aren't exact). Other key words you could try in your search are "Latter", "Latter-day", "Saints", "Utah", "Colony", and "Colonists". If I have time tomorrow I might look though the book & find it. -- 71.35.41.92 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Well. I didn't say it was a legitimately available electronic text file of the book. However, I have done a text search for "Latter", "Latter-day", "Saints", "Utah", "Colony", and "Colonists". "Latter", "Latter-day", "Saints", "Utah" come up negative. "Colony" turns up references to "Sanctuary" (the Terran Federation's "alternate Earth"), Iskander (the human colony in the proxima centauri system), "Faraway" (which is mentioned as a human colony that has been occupied by the Arachnids, but is not mentioned as being Mormon), Sheol (which is an Arachnid colony). The only other planets I remember being mention are Klendathu (the Arachnid home world) and "Planet P" (another "Bug" planet and not even a colony, but "an uncompleted advance base").

A Google.com search for "Starship Troopers Mormon" as well as "Starship Troopers Latter Day Saints" yields many references to Mormons in the film version, but no mention of Mormons in the book version. In fact, I found the following:

"Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the movie version of which mentions Mormons)" - Mainstream Science Fiction and Fantasy with Latter-day Saint (Mormon) Characters and References

and

"Bob Heinlein was never a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he had friends and acquaintances who were. Many of his novels and short stories include Latter-day Saint characters or references to the Church. These include Stranger in a Strange Land; Tunnel in the Sky; Citizen of the Galaxy; Friday; Double Star; To Sail Beyond The Sunset and Job: A Comedy of Justice. The novel If This Goes On (now published in the collection Revolt in 2100) features extensive references to Latter-day Saints and an extended scene that takes place in Provo, Utah. Despite Heinlein's propensity for including references to Latter-day Saints in his writing, and the fact that there is just such a reference in the film version of his Hugo Award-winning novel, I have not been able to find such a reference in the book. There are two possibilities: The references to "Mormon extremists" and "Port Joe Smith" may appear only in earlier editions of the novel, but has been edited out and does not appear in recently published editions. Alternatively, this scene showing a Latter-day Saint colony on another planet was entirely imagined up by the movie's screenwriter or director. " - References to Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the movie Starship Troopers (1997) - my italics

The only possible Mormon reference I can see is if the name "Regato" is uniquely Mormon, which doesn't seem likely.

"Clearly enough put.  Do you remember Madame Ruitman?  I was on a  few days  leave  after  I finished  Basic and  I went  home. I saw  some  of our friends,  said good-by -- she among  them. She chattered away and said,  `So you're really going out? Well, if you reach Faraway, you really must look up my dear friends the Regatos.' " "I told her, as gently as I could, that it seemed unlikely, since  the Arachnids had occupied Faraway.

I suspect that you are incorrectly remembering an instance of Mormonism in a different novel as being in Starship Troopers. Given that Heinlein did in fact make numerous references to the Latter-Day Saints in his writing, it is an easy and understandable mistake to make. Alternatively, I just haven't found it yet. If you can find the reference in the text, please let me know - you have me wondering now :) - Vedexent (talk) - 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Military history of ancient Rome
Hi, thanks for the copyedit. I was aware it was a colloquialism but was trying to liven up the section headers :-) Since you obviously have some knowledge of this area, I don't suppose that you would be interested in helping to expand the article into full prose? It is in an early state at the moment but we are trying to work it into a narrative account of the roman military's campagin history, with notes on other factors such as political impact, structural changes etc, where relevant. WOuld you be interested in helping? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 15:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Military Project
Just a note about your restructuring of the Roman military articles; are you not, essentially, re-creating a portal through a hierarchical structure of articles like that? Have you considered creating a Portal for the project? - Vedexent (talk) - 23:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also direct your attention to the discussion here - Vedexent (talk) - 03:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I shall have a look at this now - PocklingtonDan 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I have set up a (start class) portal now. Please have a look at it and let me know your comments for improvement and tying it in tot he articles and areas it covers. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks for the distringuished service award by the way! - PocklingtonDan 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Legio XIII Gemina's "motto"
I reverted you edit, as "Pia Fidelis" is not a motto, but a name.--Panarjedde 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops! My bad. Sorry :) - Vedexent (talk) - 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vedexent, this is my second revert on you, today, but I assure you I have nothing personally against you. My second revert was caused by two things: (1) bolding the name of the author in the note has no support anywhere, as far as I know; (2) MacBride is a book about legions, while the CIL is referenced just for a "footnote".--Panarjedde 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Portals and links
Check Amphibious warfare: it is in the Portal:War scope, yet it has only 1 link to the portal, not twice.--Panarjedde 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I find no utility in our discussions, as you clearly evade them. I would gladly avoid future interaction with you, if possible.--Panarjedde 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * *Laughs* I think the content of User talk:Panarjedde speaks volumes on its own for the validity of the "calm, rational, polite and 'oh-so-wounded by your unreasonable attitude'" facade you project here as your "parting shot". - Vedexent (talk) - 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shadowrun being inspired by Neuromancer
Hello! I guess I could understand your request for a citation if had I stated "Shadowrunâ was inspired by Neuromancer" within the article. But all I did was add a link to a Wikipedia article about Shadowrun to the "See also" section. Neuromancer was published in 1984; Shadowrun followed closely in 1989. If the game was not inspired by "Neuromancer", then what was the inspiration? Both involve cybernetic enhancements (including retractable razors, a direct lift from the book), a Japanese theme (including a samurai character class, another direct lift), Cyberspace Decks/Decks (direct lift), and most telling...The Matrix. Do any of the writers/authors of the game specifically credit Neuromancer? Not that I can find; from my research, my understanding is that Mr. Gibson does not approve of Shadowrun, nor was he ever paid anything for the lifts, so the game designers are probably thanking their lucky stars that they haven't been sued. I imagine finding such a citation would be nigh on impossible. Would it make you more comfortable if I removed the phrase "inspired by Neuromancer"? Thanks! - - weirdo actor  tundefinedc -  - 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings.


 * I asked specifically about a citation, for two reasons:


 * The "holy grail" of Wikipedia (and the only way to stop edit wars) is verifiability.
 * This edit here - which was not done by me, and is not cited either (i.e. I can't tell with any certainty if Gibson said this or not).


 * It seems that this is a (possible) "point of contention" over the article, so I think given that it is a minor point, it should probably be left out unless it can actually be cited.


 * I admit there are many similarities between elements in the book, and elements in the game. Does this mean that Neuromancer was a direct inspiration? Personally, I believe it is pretty clear that it does. Personally, I agree with you. However one can make the argument that Neuromancer heavily influenced all other Cyberpunk genre stories (pretty much every element you have mentioned can be found elsewhere), and that Shadowrun merely borrows from the genre. I suspect this is why the makers of Shadowrun have not been sued.


 * In short: I think you're right, but it is a possible flash point of an "edit war" (as stupid and petty as that is), and it is not an unassailable position (even though it seem "common sense"), and given that it is a minor point, unless it can be defended under strictest verifiability guidelines, it might be wise to just leave it off the article.


 * A stupid veering into Wikipedia politics, I know - but we cannot change human nature


 * Vedexent (talk) - 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with every point you make. I'll add my own conjecture that another reason the Shadowrun creators were not sued is because it was a less litigious era; if such a monumental lift of story elements were to happen in today's climate, the lawyers would be billing hours before you could say "stimpack". It was most certainly not my intention to start an edit war; do you think it would be alright for me to leave the wikilink in the "See also" section if I remove the phrase ""inspired by Neuromancer"? Thanks! - - weirdo actor  tundefinedc -  - 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should use your own judgment as to what would be best. I'm just warning you that the point (and the link) might be removed later for the reasons stated in that aforementioned edit summary, unless you can provide some sort of external published reference to a link between the game and the novel. I have no inclination to take it back out, but someone else might. I guess we'll just have to see if it stays in the article :) - Vedexent (talk) - 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted according to what I think is best infomationally, and to satisfy any further requests for citations. I'd like to find a citation for Gibson's opinion of the game; I found one earlier, and now I can't seem to find it...heh. Thanks for your help! - - weirdo actor  tundefinedc -  - 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Spartan and Athenian userboxes!
Hi Vedexent!

You seem to be the most active fellow in the Classical warfare task force, so I thought I'd bring my idea to you.

I've been thoroughly fascinated with Classical Greece for some time now, especially the wars between Athens and Sparta. I've participated in a great number of debates about such wars, normally about the Peloponnesian Wars and the Persian invasions of the 5th century BCE, and during this time, I've developed a slant toward the Spartans, almost in the same fashion in which people may develop a slant toward a specific football team.

Since many people whom I've discussed this topic with have a similar such slant, usually toward either the Spartans or Athenians, I thought, well, why not make a userbox for it on Wikipedia? Perhaps similar people would like to display such slants on their userpages. So I did, a few moments ago. They look a little base, and the page which they link to (which also tries to explain this issue) looks quite sad, but hey, it's still just an idea. If you wouldn't mind giving me your thoughts, I'd be most appreciative.

Here are the userboxes themselves:

Thanks! ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Proofread
Hi Vedexent

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

Thanks Wandalstouring 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 00:34, 24 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 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Campaign history of the Roman military - FAC nomination
Hi, I have self-nominated Campaign history of the Roman military for featured article status: FAC nomination. However, people are being incredibly reticent about remarking on it either positively or negatively, I think a lot of people lack the specific subject knowledge to confidently support or oppose the nomination. Since you I belive have a sound knowledge of ancient Rome, would it be possible for you to post your own comments on whether or not you believe the article is of featured article quality, and any improvements to the article that you think are called for. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 11:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:43, 8 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 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007
Delivered by grafikbot 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

do you have any texts on roman military?
Hi, I'm working on Structural history of the Roman militaryâ at the moment but really struggling to find concrete info on Roman military structure from the later empire (150 AD onwards). I appreciate that it isn't as well documented in the primary sources for a start and that most people's research nowadays is into the republic and early empire but there must be something out there on the later empire. Do you have any texts at all that you think would be helpful that you can either recommend for purchase or else that you would be willing to scan for me to have a look at? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review Child sacrifice
It's been a while since we worked together on the Carthage article. I have been brought back to the Child sacrifice article by an AFD on Child cannibalism. I would appreciate your feedback on the "Phoenicia and Carthage" section of the Child sacrifice article. Thanx. --Richard 17:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:F-15i.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:F-15i.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Yonatan talk 09:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Starship
No problem with your change. I inserted that for obvious reasons. What gets a bit lost in your change however is that I wanted to discourage every Star Wars / Star Trek ship ending up here on the argument "Hey, the Millenium Falcon is here, so I can add the T-Wing (or whatever) - as well!" MadMaxDog 12:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Disregard my comment. Hidden text still spells it out nicely. MadMaxDog 12:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aspis.gif
Hello, Vedexent. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Aspis.gif) was found at the following location: User talk:Vedexent/archive2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or    media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus
Thx for the message about references. Many delete without thinking or asking. I had left a post on the articles talk page explaining why there were no references attached. I have a recent National Geographic documentary on Spartacus and there is still a lot of edits I want to do but need to watch it again to make sure I get it right and to get the names of the four historians who narrate it so i can find their other work on spartacus. The Doco says it is latest research on him and includes much detail missing from the article. Wayne 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I did include one fact that was speculative (the reason he deserted) and I'm thinking of a way to reword it. The assumption according to the researchers is based on the fact he deserted while serving in Thrace (being a free citizen and married it would not have been an easy decision) and his later behaviour which indicates a very high moral standard. A not unreasonable claim worthy of inclusion. Wayne 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tessarakonteres
Some debate going on here, and verging on a revert war, over whether it's fictional/historical/mythological (and should be categorised as such), or any combination of the above. (IMHO, even if the ship never existed, fictional is unsuitable as it's not in a 'work of fiction' per se but a history, and mythological is unsuitable as mythology is generally many centuries earlier than 200 BC.) Any outside opinions/arbitration would be greatly appreciated. Neddyseagoon - talk 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Dyson sphere images
Thank you for the work on the Dyson sphere article - in particular, the images you have uploaded for illustrating it. A slight problem though, is that the conversion of the images to GIF seems to have reduced each image to being dithered of a palette of around 7-10 colours which, unfortunately, has slightly spoiled the quality of your images.

I was wondering, if you still had the original, undithered images, whether you would be able to reupload them as PNGs? The PNG image format is capable of storing full-colour images, and saving them in this format can bypass a colour palette reduction that could potentially degrade the quality.

With best regards, CountingPine 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Carthage:
Originally founded by Phoenician colonists, Carthage grew into a vast economic and political power(any source that such a thing existed or only sources that the city was rich) throughout the Mediterranean Sea (source?), accumulating wealth and influence through its economic (trading) prowess(source?). Carthage was a major power of the Mediterranean, contemporaneously with the Roman Republic of the 3rd and 2nd century BC(how does it happen that Carthage was founded several hundred years prior?), and was its rival for dominance of the western Mediterranean(source?). Eventually this rivalry led to a series of three wars known as the Punic Wars(source that they were rivals, enemies yes?), each of which Carthage lost. These losses led to a decline in Carthage's political and economic strength(archeological greatest economic strength after the Second Punic War- bullshit?), mostly due to the harsh penalties imposed on Carthage by Rome as conditions for the cessation of hostilities. The Third Punic War ended with the complete destruction of the city of Carthage(sources, Scipio said he won't touch the temples) and the annexation of the last remnants of Carthaginian territory by Rome. Distinct Carthaginian civilization waned, but remnants contributed to later Mediterranean cultures(what later cultures?).

Does this answer your questions? Wandalstouring 09:43, 22 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! Kyriakos 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 09:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)
Delivered by grafikbot 15:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawn
Hi! You might want to read the discussion at Talk:Dawn (spacecraft), the result of which was a partial reversion of your recent edit to that article. If you agree with the current version I'll mark the discussion "resolved".... (sdsds - talk) 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
Delivered by grafikbot 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyson sphere
On Talk:Dyson sphere/Archive 2, you mention wanting to get the article promoted. I've been trying to get it to GA status, and I'd appreciate any prose editing you'd like to contribute per the reviewers' comments on the talk page. Thanks. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)
Delivered by grafikbot 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hanno the great
I haven't read all that much about him, just little tidbits from various sources. I do know however that he earned "the great" moniker due to his conquests in Africa and that he was generally considered the head of that faction that was against war with Rome in the first two Punic wars and as the primary opposition to the Barcids (Hamilcar Barca, Hannibal Barca, Hasdrubal Barca, and Mago Barca) he is usually considered responsible for the lack of reinforcements and support sent to Hannibal in Italy during the Second Punic war.

Anyways, I figured that we shouldn't refer to him as an inept General based solely on his defeats in the Mercenary War when he had such a long career. Also it sounds kinda funny but that fact that he was never executed maybe is indicative that he wasn't all the inept anyways (The Carthaginians were notorious for killing their Generals who were unsuccessful).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of the Antonines
With reference to a comment you made on the discussion page for Antonines, I had always thought that the definition for the Antonine period was as you describe - based on the selection procedure and including several emperors from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius. As for sources, I know that J.M. Roberts' New Penguin History of the World refers to Nerva through to Marcus Aurelius as the "age of the Antonines" so perhaps it should be changed? Then again, at present wikipedia is making a distinction between the Nervo-Trajanic dynasty (Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian) and the Antonine dynasty (Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius), so maybe this is the correct system. Blankfrackis (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dyson Bubble.GIF listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image%3ADyson%20Bubble.GIF, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. BJBot (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on Morphological analysis needs an overhaul
The article on Morphological analysis started out as a relatively simple reference to Zwickyâs ideas, a definition of the process, a few references and some external links. I did not initiate this, but whoever did referred to me and the Swedish Morphological Society. This was fine with me: I went in and added a few details which I though relevant to the subject, but more or less left things as they were.

Then, a Mr. I. Tjahyo Sarwono came along with some very complicated diagrams, rather poor English, misinterpretations and explicit errors (a parameter he mistakenly calls a value, and a value he calls a parameter). I am in despair over this, as I donât want morphological analysis to get a bad name because of a sloppy Wikipedia article. I would like to go in and give the article a major overhaul â but I donât know what the policy is about throwing out other contributorsâ texts and diagrams. Can you give me some council on this?

Tom Ritchey -- The Swedish Morphological Society. (ritchey@swemorph.com]

RE: Neuromancer / Hideo
Peter Vasiljev: In response to your question - as far as I remember, in "Johnny Mnemonic" Hideo (or one of his clones) had a monowire whip implanted in his thumb. But since I cannot find the actual reference, I'm willing to concede the topic to you.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman law
I saw your invitation to tackling some Roman law articles in the archive of wikiproject law. As the holder of a BA in Greek and Roman Classics and a current law student, I would be happy to help on specific articles. Your initial stated project was on Roman citizenship. I started the Pro Archia Poeta page some time ago and know something of the topic. My current real life research is on ancient rape legislation and its influence on the common law (for a paper due in April). If there is something in particular on which you would like to collaborate, let me know. cheers! Legis Nuntius (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history coordinator selection
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look
There is a current A-class review on Auxiliaries (Roman military). Please drop by and leave a note. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLV (November 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Roman inquires
Your input would be appreciated at
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Reference desk/Humanities
 * Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)