User talk:Wandalstouring/archive 6

notification
Thanks for your comments, I was thinking about this, and I think it would not only be good to have a standard template but also useful to have a seperate place to put them, perhaps a transcluded drop down box at the top of the talk page? That way everyone can see what is coming under review in one neat place all together. I have to say that I jpined GAR because I think it is very important - here we are claiming that there articles are at an "acceptable" level and throughout the list are articles that fall way short of the criteria! Regarding William Johnstone Hope, what do you actually want me to do with the article? You've complained about the prose and simultaneously suggested it should be submitted at A-class, which seems pretty contradictory. Its also still on hold but there aren't really any comments I can use to improve it. Can you be clearer?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA under review messages
Should we perhaps just add another slot to the announcement box, to go with the GA candidacy one? Kirill (prof) 23:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
"Two years later Hope transferred yet again, being requested by Sir Richard Hughes as lieutenant on HMS Adamant." My question is, does this statement mean that Hughes was a lieutenant, or that he requested that Hope be a lieutenant? RC-0722 361.0/1  00:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. RC-0722 361.0/1  17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Vimy Ridge
Sheldon has written a number, his one on Vimy is rather new. Which book do you have access to? the Vimy Sheldon, Cave 2007 book? If so access would be helpful, I might be able to add some additional German side information. If not, no additional German perspective will be possible. Labattblueboy (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you provide me with scans of any information that could be added for the German side, I will be sure to do so. I have also added the requested image to the commons, have a look when you get the chance 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labattblueboy (talk • contribs)


 * I have added additional citations regarding the German side including their view of the battle as draw, Pour le Mérite winners, the German tactical plan and the geographical limitations in implementing them, as well some data regarding the German reaction to main and preliminary attacks. This is in addiction to the court of inquiry already there, the summary German order of battle already present. I will attempt to add more to the German reaction to the main battle with the new source material, which I am greatly appreciative ofLabattblueboy (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

1st Sustainment Brigade (United States)
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I made the improvement that you suggested on the 1st Sustainment Brigade (United States) page. If there is anything more that needs doing there, please let me know. Thanks, - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare
Hi Wandal,

Some very eager reviewer is trying to delist Horses in warfare from GA status. I know they've tightened the criteria, but IMHO the reviewer is sort of engaging in overkill and nitpicking over things that aren't even relevant. S/he also put it up for a community review without even waiting for the active editors to weigh in. I was offline less than 48 hours and the thing is practically skewered. As you did so much to help get the article to GA in the first place, (even if we spatted a lot at the time! LOL!)  I would appreciate it if you would weigh in there and maybe help cool off the silly stuff while a number of folks work on some of the legitimate points that were raised (the citations do need some work, for example). Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Montanabw (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

102nd IW
Well you read my mind on the promotion part. I'll do just that though when it becomes a GA-Class article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the War on Terror section. Feel free to do what you want to it. we could replace come of the bold links with links to dead pages if you want. Otherwise I think some of the other unit pages should probably remain as they are so that someone someday might notice it and put a link if they know that the page exists. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, I forgot to look that part over. I'll fix that now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is how it reads now: "Two F-15s piloted by Colonel Anthony Schiavi and Major Daniel Nash were scrambled and took off to fly to New York." Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Finished. Thanks for all your help on the article. I really could not have done it without your moral support and guidance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

William Johnstone Hope
OK, I think I'm done, and if you want you can noinate it for A-class. But I'm not handing out any guarantees, as my copy-editing is a little rusty, and I might have missed a few things. Good luck! RC-0722 361.0/1  03:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

re: IP editor possess problems again
I will endorse the warning you've posted on their talk page. If they revert the article again a ban would be in order. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Germanic cavalry
It's interesting data. Are these bog deposits are representative of 4th c. Alamanni? If so, perhaps you would like to make an edit to Battle of Strasbourg to include this information? Regarding the 35,000 figure: I don't think it's unrealistic if it was a full mobilisation of every available warrior plus non-Alamanni allies, as Ammianus suggests. As my note on Alamanni forces states:

At Strasbourg, there were 9 reges (kings): Chnodomar and his nephew Serapio; Westralp, Urius, Ursicinus, Hortarius, Suomarius; and the two treaty-breakers Vadomar and his colleague. Each would probably have had two pagi under him making a total of 18 pagi. If we assume the non-Alamanni levies, as Drinkwater does, at 25 %, that leaves ca. 26,000 Alamanni warriors at Strasbourg: roughly 1,500 per pagus. The total population of the Alamanni was ca. 135,000 (midpoint between 120-150,000), so each pagus would on average contain ca. 7,500 people. So 20% of the pagus population would have been levied for Strasbourg. Elton shows that up to 25% warriors in a barbarian population is realistic.

Also, if you're right and Chnodomar's cavalry was outnumbered 4 to 1, it's hard to see how they could possibly have routed the Roman cavalry, even allowing for Chnodomar's stratagem. But do make an edit. P.S. Late Roman army (your favourite article!) is ready for launch. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject report
It'll allow a broader coverage of what the project does, it may also attract new people to become members. Its in the interests of the Project for their work to be shown in the Signpost. Rudget  ( logs ) 10:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see an archive version of a report which involved multiple members: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-31/WikiProject report. Rudget   ( logs ) 14:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief interview with you should be fine. It'll only involve answer 5-6 question at the most. If you don't want to continue with it, no worries. Rudget   ( logs ) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll draw up the questions in a few minutes. Rudget   ( logs ) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/WikiProject report. Rudget   ( logs ) 16:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My GA article
Thanks for promoting Insurgency in Ogaden, however there is a problem. Paragraph 3 is not visible (see also should be paragraph 4). I really don't understand that bug...--TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman Army
Hi there. I fixed the ndashes, BC/BCE, nbsp and all that. Also, there are probably more places where the same references were rpinted twice instead of being referred to multiple times. I haven't looked at the prose yet. Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is discussion needed to simply reword some statements to another form which has the same meaning?  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you submitted Late Roman army to review already? If so, where can I find it? Please keep me informed. Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, I see the review is under way. It would have been nice if you had informed me of it. I also see that you've landed me with TWO copyeditors. Dhatfield has already started his edit with the Principate subsection. And accuracy is already suffering. e.g. my wording "ca. 30 legions, almost entirely infantry" has become just "30 legions of infantry", ignoring the fact that the number of legions varied and that they had cavalry arms. In fact, Dhatfield has decided to remove all the circa 's in favour of simple figures, even though most of these figures are approximative. He also lost the point that commoners could be elevated to equites, but not, normally, to senators directly. To be fair, not all the changes are bad: e.g. his listing of the offices of the two orders above one another is obviously easier to read. But the changes have been so minor that one wonders whether it is worth the hassle. And the other guy hasn't even started yet. But this time, I'm inclined to let the process run its course, if only to show you how pointless it is. After all, if the article does end up as an incoherent jumble, we can always revert to the original version. Vale 86.85.44.73 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

bog deposits
Can you please tell me more and/or give me references about the bog deposits of Germanic armies you mentioned? Do they relate to the Alamanni? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Help get some good graphs and pictures.
The Wiki that myself and others are working on, military sociology, is in some need of good graphs or pictures since we have but one (a bad one that I made out of desperation). Any help would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dam59 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
I would ask you to take a close look at Dhatfield's latest copyedit (13.50 22 July) to Late Roman army and compare to the original. You will note that each paragraph is now slightly longer, not more concise. Also note that most of the changes are just a matter of preference for equivalent words or phrases. Two points are badly garbled e.g. the reduction of the size of British legions, as evidenced by the abandonment of their bases, which Dhatfield interprets (quite wrongly) as desertion. In fact, the legionaries just moved to smaller forts, as they were now split into smaller units. Precision has again suffered: e.g. ca. 175 is now just 175, even though the exact date is unknown. "Attested" has become "based", even though a unit can be attested far from where it was based e.g. on a tombstone of a veteran who went back to his home province on retirement. Taking the edit as a whole, can you honestly tell me the new version is an improvement ob the original? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
I asked Dhatfield to stop his copyedit, as it really was counterproductive (He clearly knows nothing about Roman history and I was having to correct almost every para). Besides, if you read his suggestions in the discussion page of the article, he was aiming at rewriting the whole thing into a kind of late version of the television series Rome. I notice that someone has closed the review. Is there some kind of time limit on these? If so, it's much too short, as we've only had one comment. I guess many people have gone away on holiday and interrupted their Wiki activity. PS: I haven't heard from you for a while: have you stopped logging in also? Yours EraNavigator (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Good to hear from you again. I have no further comment to make about Dhatfield's comments and edits, I think you know my opinion of them already. Look, can we stop this endless reviewing of the wording of this article? If you recall, you already asked another copyeditor to advise on this and he told us that 95% of the article was OK. The other 5% he made suggestions about, most of which I implemented (see the Discussion page of the article). You seem to have developed an obsession with this issue. But AnnaFrance would be useful for MoS edits (she's doing a good job on auxilia and she's also easy to communicate with).

The Dhatfield fiasco shows that the whole A-class review process is seriously flawed. Firstly, it's far too brief. This one was closed after just 4 days (is that normal?) before anyone other than Dhatfield had a chance to comment. Secondly, it's open to anyone who feels like it, even if they know nothing of the subject matter (like Dhatfield). That in turn means that commentary is often limited to presentational points rather than the content of the article i.e. trivia rather than substance. But it's the content that makes a good article, not the presentation. Thirdly, by operating on consensus, rather than by majority vote, it gives anyone, no matter how ignorant of the subject, an effective veto on the article being approved. In my opinion, assessments should be based on content alone (after all, MoS/presentation can easily fixed later, by anyone, unlike content). This in turn means that only people with expertise in the subject matter (e.g. yourself) could comment.

It's time that you recognised, Kurt, that Wiki's Roman military history offerings are, generally, pretty weak and that you can ill-afford to do without articles of the level and quality of Late Roman army. So it's in the best interest of your project that you rate them properly. Otherwise you will not attract the best talent to contribute.

I hope you are enjoying your excavation. Found anything interesting yet? The best artefact I ever found was a large Roman chisel, which I believe is now in a local museum in Abingdon, Oxfordshire. Yours 86.85.44.73 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject History
I put you down as a coordinator for the Wikipedia:WikiProject History. remove it if you don't wanna do that ... J. D. Redding 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
You are a very obstinate person (but then again, so am I!). I can understand the need for copyediting where the author is not a native-quality English speaker. Also if he is a native speaker but clearly has not learned how to write an essay during his years of school. But otherwise copyediting becomes a futile exercise in searching for alternative words or phrases, without any clear reason why they are preferable. Not only futile, but damaging, because you disrupt the natural flow of the prose. Every writer has a "style fingerprint": a unique combination of preferences for words or expressions. For example some people prefer to use the word "liberty", others "freedom". They mean exactly the same thing, and neither is preferable to the other. If you disrupt that fingerprint, the article can actually become more difficult to read. That's why the many articles in Wiki that have been written by committee, rather than by a single author, are such a bad read. But even worse than this, if you mess around with the prose unnecessarily, you risk alienating good authors (I'm not surprised you are short of good Roman editors!).

In my opinion, prose should only be modified if it fails the following criteria: (a) grammatically correct and idiomatic English; (b) clear and unambiguous; (c) relevant to the subject. Beyond that, prose style should be left well alone.

Anyway, you're obviously determined to continue with this nonsense. If you bring in AnnaFrance, I suggest you get her to copyedit just the first section of Late Roman army (Evolution) initially, so that we can assess the result, before you let her deal with the rest. Yours 86.85.44.73 (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I'll take my time, do a very light copyedit, and we'll see how it goes. You don't like it, you can always fire me. :) -- AnnaFrance   (talk)  12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Boroughbridge
Hi, thanks for your GA pass of the Battle of Boroughbridge! Lampman (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Ollantaytambo
Hello, it's been a while but I think the Battle of Ollantaytambo article is ready for a second review now. Please check it out whenever you can. Greetings, --Victor12 (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All standing issues have been addressed now, at least I think so. --Victor12 (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class standards
Having checked the A-class criteria, it is clear that Late Roman army was failed for the wrong reasons. The criteria state:

"Please note that (unlike an actual featured article) an A-class article is not expected to meet all the criteria for featured article. An objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article. In particular, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting should be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-class status even if it could use some further copyediting."

There is no doubt that the article is "comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written". There were no substantive objections. Dhatfield's personal dislike of the prose style is irrelevant at this stage. And Binguyen's objection about footnotes not being paired should not have been made. It also raises the question of why you have maintained a ceaseless campaign to have the article copyedited when this would only be required for FA-class. Would you care to explain your conduct? EraNavigator (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor correction: Unofficially. Even so, I do feel the review was a travesty. There was no serious discussion of whether the article fulfilled the A criteria of "comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written". EraNavigator (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was being lighthearted in my message above, but I honestly didn't realize that your objections to a copyedit were so strongly felt. I certainly won't touch the article until the primary editor agrees to it. This would just be a headache for all of us. Have a good week! -- AnnaFrance  (talk  &mdash;  blunders)  14:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

hillo
Greetings earthling, i put my request for nomination in GA review, not B review for a third time, i remember doing it twice, because i did it two times after i got rated as an B. therefore im sorry if i caused you any distress. Thanks buddy.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Crossbow
Hello. I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. Are you sure you're talking to the right editor? I recently added information in the article crossbow about the oldest crossbow bolts from China and the oldest crossbow stocks found in archaeological excavations; I'm not sure what that has to do with catapults or the ballista.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Craze
I started a discussion concerning the overuse of the disambiguator "(United States)" here. I tried to make it encompass more the U.S. units. Your support will be much appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the objections are starting. You will be really appreciated now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The "extraordinary" claim about the caracole
I've uploaded three images from the relevant section of Cruso's manual:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crusop97.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Crusop98.png

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cruso.png

There should be something in Wallhausen, too, but my German isn't that good so it'll take some time to find his take on the "caracoll" (though, as far as I remember, the "caracoll" Cruso shows is Wallhausen's interpretation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by L clausewitz (talk • contribs) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The Crossbow and Diodorus Siculus
I should have started a discussion in the disscusion section first and should have not added somekind of footnote. You are surley right on that point. Dispite this problem, the frist section on the ancient Greek crossbow where it relies on Marsden and Campbell is wrong. What I have stated is the communis opino and should regarded in this way as fact. Diodorus Siculus 14,42,1 and later in his histories never describes a weapon like a crossbow! He makes no difference in terms on artillery (catapults). So we don't know if artillery discribed by Hero of Alexandria and Philo of Byzantium is meant or something like the pices of artillery Biton discribed (A point made also by Serafina Cuomo 2007 in her Greek and Roman Technology). Hero is the only one who discribes the gastraphetes, but neither his sources (it was not Ctesibius as Marsden thought and he could and did in fact did not prove it!) nor the time of development could be dated. In Marsden opinion, which is based not on detailed soure criticism or research on that point) Diodorus Siculus 14,42,1 means that the gastraphetes was developed for the frist time: But Diodorus did not say this. Whatever some Philistus my have seen, we don't know, or if Diodorus use his work as source via different later Greek historians. The same point and problems was shown by Kingsley 1995 and he refuted Marsden theses in 1995. Youc could not haromnise Marsden and Kingsley, they are opposite opinions. The information by Diodorus and Hero are not related. If you take Kingsley's argument serious, that Zopyrus of Tarentum was active before 421, the gastraphetes of Hero must be older (much) as the ones discribed by Zopyrus (via Biton). What Marsden had to say is now proven wrong. This are the points made by Kingsley 1995 Schellenberg 2006 and 2008. Schellenberg did also checked the opinion of Needham and Yates 1994 (and tried to check even the fragments of Mozi on Chinese artillery) and what they had to say on the gastraphetes of Hero (they opinon is grounded on serveral errors and influenced by Marsden, then still alive, which means the books must have been years in the making). A section of the article on the history of the ancient crossbow could not been grounded on Marsden et. al. That is my point. The reader should be aware of existing differnces (at least I thought), if footnotes are used in this manner. I don't want to start somekind of afruitless edit- or opinionwar. With best wishes Pogonatos2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogonatos2 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You suggestion sounds very good. I try to draft a section on the discussion page with as many sources as neccesary. This will take some time especially to check the reference in the sources (Diodorus for example). If you argee after reading the draft, we could consider to change the article. Pogonatos2 (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but working consumed at the moment all of time and I made not much progress.Hopefully I will be finished next week, but I could promise nothing. If you like I could send some papers on artillery I collected? Pogonatos2 (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle or Siege ?
Thank you very much for your answer. I answered on the talk page of the military history project I had the answer but I didn't want to give it there so that other people are not influenced. But here is it. What do you think about the issue with this material in hand ? Ceedjee (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
I consider Late Roman army to be ready for re-submission for A-class review. I consulted 3 editors who have commented on Roman military affairs before (e.g. auxilia) and they all tell me they think it easily satisfies the criteria (you can see their comments on my talk page). I have made some changes in response to their comments. There is now two new (sub)sections, Tactics and Supply Infrastructure. I've also added some new illustrations to bring in original images to balance the reenactors. AnnaFrance's copyedit is ongoing but proceeding very slowly. In any case, she is making only minimal changes. That can continue even if we resubmit. So I suggest we proceed.

As for me, I'm calling a halt to my contributions to Wiki. It's time I started producing something on my own site, free from the constraints of OR, POV and MOS etc. I've enjoyed our collaboration, apart from your recent obsession with prose style. Can I take it that I can consult you about my own articles? Best wishes EraNavigator (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine, thanks. When you submit it, please be sure to tell me immediately, so I can alert my 3 supporters to comment. EraNavigator (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the input to Late Roman army. I'm working my way through the Citations Needed. Just a couple of points so far:
 * 1) The citation for the "scarce and ambiguous literary evidence" on unit sizes is the Jones ref itself, where he sets the evidence out and describes it in much the same terms. So this needs no further action
 * 2) The sagittarii issue is difficult because of the very limited evidence (mostly Trajan's Column). As I understand the authoritative position (i.e. Paul Holder, the dean of auxiliary studies) sagittariorum unit members did all carry bows (as the title implies), but there was a distinction between pure archers (i.e. Syrian units), who were armed with only bows (some had armour, some did not) and units that were armed (and presumably fought) in exactly the same way as other auxiliaries except that they carried bows instead of pila (or hastae in the case of cavalry) i.e. Thracian sagittarii. The main uncertainty concerns non-sagittariorum regiments, as there is evidence that they contained some archers. This makes sense, as having no missile capability would restrict their operational flexibility. But you are right that I need to nail down a hard ref for this. EraNavigator (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Tigranocerta‎
Hi, you indicated you were reviewing this 32 days ago, please can you finish the review, thanks Tom (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons
Hi Wandalstouring. You once indicated you'd be reading Early thermal weapons over your summer, with a view to FA-proofing it. I wondered if you found the time, and how you got on. I was approached on my talk page about nom'ing it for FAC, so I'm thinking now may be a good time to work towards it. Gwinva (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
I have a question for you: if a statement is the logical consequence of another (referenced) statement, surely the former does not need to be referenced also? Imaginary example: "Not more than two-thirds of Roman cavalry was armoured" (ref). Therefore, at least a third was light, unarmoured cavalry" The second statement follows from the first, so does not need a ref?

The reason I ask is that you put a FACT notice on the following statement: "The changes to unit structure in the 4th century were reduction of unit sizes and increase in unit numbers, establishment of new unit types and establishment of a hierarchy of units more complex than the old one of legions and auxilia." But this just a summary of the points in the section that follows, which are referenced. As it happens I have no difficulty in finding a ref for this particular statement, but I'm asking as a general point. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, forget it. I've found a ref anyway, so it doesn't matter. EraNavigator (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now dealt with the points you raised. Where I could not find a ref, I've simply modified or removed the statement in question (e.g. for the sagittariorum regiments, it's now "meaning that they specialised in archery". Although I'm still sure they were all archers, I have not had a chance to visit the Univ Library to find a ref). Apart from this, I've also modified some wording to make it more neutral in line with NPOV. So I think it's ready to go. 86.85.44.73 (talk) 06:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 07:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries
sorry if i was a little curt before. it wasn't me who nominated it, i was going through the GA report and chasing-up outstanding reviews. you may want to put a note on the nominator's page like you just on mine, thanks Tom (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Carthage
I commented on you comment on the talk page. Feel free to reply. All the best.Dejvid (talk) 16:33, 1 September 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) 00:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of battles by casualties
Dear Wandalstouring, I just visited this page and I found you removed all battles and sieges that contain no references. This is not the best idea, because all those items contain references to appropriate pages that contain all needed information about sources. Therefore those data cannot be considered un-sourced. Your editing destroys the work of previous editors and created considerable problems. It actually destroyed the whole article for absolutely formal reason. I see no reason to consider the data unsourced if they contain a reference where a proper source is provided, otherwise you should delete a half of Wikipedia content. The Battle of Berlin and Battle of Moscow article, for example, have a reference on this article, however, there is no these items there. It would be better if you revert your editing back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Navarino
Do you think Battle of Navarino qualifies for A-class? I'm aware quite a few more refs are needed, but apart from that? EraNavigator (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no article(s) to link to. The main article, Greek War of Independence, has almost nothing about the background to Great Power intervention, while Eastern Question has one brief section. So Battle of Navarino is intended as the main article for both these two, with a full account of the Powers' involvement in the conflict, integrated with the account of the battle itself. One option would be to split the article into two, with the Great Power diplomacy in a new Great Power intervention in the Greek war of independence, leaving the sections on the battle itself in Battle of Navarino. But this would not especially benefit the general reader, who would lose the sequential links between battle and background/aftermath. EraNavigator (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sad news
I was very sorry to hear that you've decided not to re-stand in the Milhist elections. The project will be a poorer place without you. While I haven't always agreed with you, I have a great deal of respect both for your opinions and the commendable economy with which you express them. Thank you for your work over the last seven months. It has been appreciated. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Intercisa Late Roman army
As requested, I have added very full citations, with quotes, for both the idea that this type of helmet was cheap to manufacture and was also expensively decorated.

Please note that I didn't introduce the idea that the helmets were cheap to make - that assertion was already in the text (with a ref) I just wanted to point out that the hypothesis that a helmet form is adopted for the sake of economy doesn't sit very comfortably with the evidence that they were subsequently very expensively decorated.Urselius (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not confuse what I have said on the talk page with what I have written in the article itself. Please read what I have written in the article, it is not in the slightest bit controversial and is backed up by more than adequate references to works by experts in the fields of Roman military history and archaeology.


 * What I have said is a) Goldsworthy (and many others not directly referenced - I could add Elton) say that the Intercisa type helmet was "cheaply mass-manufactured," then I have said b) Southern and Dixon, and Bishop and Coulston record that there is evidence that a high proportion of surviving Intercisa helmets show evidence of having had expensive silver sheathing.


 * What I have said is merely pointing out what is in the sources. Since when has reporting and indeed quoting published relevant academic books been controversial or, indeed, original research?  What I have written on the article page itself is in no way a theory or even my theory, please note this. What I have said on the talk page does include my own opinions, BUT my own opinions are not stated on the article page only what is available in the published works directly referenced, please, please, note this!


 * BTW it isn't my fault that the sources present diametrically opposed views, I'm merely presenting them for the attention of any reader of the article. Urselius (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Navarino
Hi. Thanks for the offer, but I don't think I'll bother to change it. As far as I'm concerned, the article is fine as it stands (except for the refs). At 65k, the length is reasonable, and the sections follow logically and are relevant and well integrated. If I can find sufficient support for it, I'll submit it. Otherwise, never mind. PS: I noticed (above) that you are not standing for the Milhist elections (whetever they are). Does that mean you are no longer going to be an active editor? EraNavigator (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

warning
Dt23 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. You have been deleting work on wiki article list of battles by death toll please stop!!
 * Absolutely support. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have ben looking for you and you rather disruptive edits for a while. You have no right to delete those pages and the admin should side with me on this one. And by the way it apoligize for signing my name wrong i was in a hurry. And Ive ben on Wikipedia for some while.I am fully capable of challenging your edits--Dt23 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MilHist coordinator election
ok I am Backing off please remove my name from the candidates -- Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 05:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman helmets
I've added a qualifying statement to Urselius' edit on helmets in Late Roman army:

Despite the apparent cheapness of manufacture of their basic components, many surviving examples of Late Roman helmets, including the Intercisa type, show evidence of expensive decoration in the form of silver or silver-gilt sheathing. ''A possible explanation is that most of the surviving exemplars belonged to officers and that silver- or gold-plating, or mounted gemstones, denoted rank e.g. the Deurne helmet, believed by some historians to have belonged to a senior officer. '' EraNavigator (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: triarii
thanks fopr that template. I knowI was an almighty dick in the past, hopefully we can forget about that. :-)--Serviam (talk)  11:43, 14 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) 23:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army

 * 1) I've added an extra para to Army Size section in Late Roman army, with details on excavation evidence for small units in 4th c army.
 * 2) Urselius isn't giving up on his silver helmets theory. See his latest edit in the Helmets section. He now claims that troops were awarded silver helmets as pay (presumably the recipients would have to scrape off the silver plating in order to benefit from this bonus)
 * 3) See the superb map created of the Roman empire under Hadrian created by Andrei Nacu under my direction. EraNavigator (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Elton ref (unfortunately I can't check the page no. at this moment) simply validates the statement that the scutum was replaced by the clipeus. The testudo is just my own interpolation. EraNavigator (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

First Crusade
Thanks for your vote of confidence, although I must admit my knowledge of the Middle Ages is not as profound as you generously claim! More to the point, since the crusades are not my main area of interest, I don't have ready access to the books referenced. However, I shall see what I can get. In the meantime, I have dropped a note on Adam Bishop's talk page: he's a crusade specialist, and the original FA nominator. I must offer some advanced warning, however: it is possible (but not assured) that my Real Life might go a little mad for a few weeks, in which case my WP time will be limited, unfortunately. But I will do what I can. Gwinva (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

your reactions to comments
I noticed your comment re possible alternative outcomes to the battle of Jutland. It did not seem appropriate to continue the digression where the analogy was initially made, so I thought it better to repond here. This was not a battle where speed had much to do with it. The outcome was dictated by the simple mathematics that the German fleet was outnumbered and outgunned. Either more ships, or more guns per ship would have altered the balance. I don't see how their ships being faster would either have allowed them an advantage sufficient to take on the British, or have enabled them to escape much quicker. The battle turn away was executed quite effectively. Delays in escaping were not so much due to ship speed, but in communications problems, so that the admiral could not give orders until he knew what was happening. The advantage given to ships by speed is the ability to choose the range of engagement. On the whole, the British had adopted a big gun/small armour strategy intended to give the edge in gun range. Thus extra german speed might have allowed them to run, but not to close and attack without suffering losses from the larger fleet. Of course, the fleets occupied a pretty big area, so speed might allow the Germans to concentrate their fire while darting about.

This is not, however, an issue parallel to the question of bad shells. Designing good shells was well within the technological capability of the combatants, and indeed the British sorted the problem afterwards. A dramatic improvement in shells was possible (we are talking about something like a 30% failure rate either to penetrate or explode properly). In contrast, a dramtic improvement in the speed of all ships of this order was not possible within the technological constraints of the time. Initially having bad shells was an administrative cock-up, and to some extend the problem was realised at the time of the battle. As I said, there existed a real choice of using rejected shells, or having a shortage instead. In an earlier battle, ships had been under orders to conserve ammunition, and this was considered to have contributed to the escape of German ships. So they changed that order. They chose to use inferior material rather than have none.

This is precisely the situation here. Well, not exactly. The editorial team has defined a standard which they consider appropriate for material to be distrubuted in the name of wikipedia. The history project has chosen a higher standard. The project is currently arguing over whether to recommend rejecting articles on the basis of this higher standard, which logically the editorial team would be happy to accept on their own standard. The editorial team has asked for one thing, but is being given something different. I am sure they are pleased for all the help they can get, but if someone asks for a certain thing, why perversely give them something different when the exact thing they ask for is available?

Selecton of articles for distribution is significantly based upon popularity of the articles. I am assuming they equate the number of people who have viewed an article with its importance. I do; obviously the more people who are interested in a certain topic, the more important it is that wiki present an article about it. WHile obviously it would be counter-productive to distribute articles which are nonsense, that is not what is being debated here. A major consideration seems to be that entirely accurate articles are being rejected because they have relatively poor referencing, even though this still exceeds the requirements of the editorial team. I'm sorry, but to me that just seems like disrupting the selection process and making the resulting distribution copy worse.

Please do not delete comments posted on wikipedia talk pages in good faith, just because you do  do not understand them. I hope the above has explained in somewhat more detail. Sandpiper (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting posts by others on talk pages is one of the cardinal sins on wiki. wiki operates by debate and consensus: it is not permissable to delete others comments because you disagree with them. On the other point, If you do understand naval tactics, then perhaps you should consider that knowledge more carefully before commenting. Sandpiper (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Contact
Yes I'm sorry about that. Here are some contributions--Battle of Marion, Battle of Appomattox Station, Battle of Hanging Rock, Battle of St. Mihiel. Those are just a few of my best from US History. <font face="Papyrus"> Ṝέđ ṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line''' 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mulling
You'll be pleased to hear that I'll be posting something this evening (UTC). -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

MILHIST Contact
Hi there. I was browsing through some of the pages on my watchlist, and saw you talking to Redmarkviolinist about being a MILHIST Contact. After looking through the Contact page, I was wondering if I might be able to ask about becoming a Contact for the topic of Airborne Warfare. The topic is a particular passion of mine, and which I hope to do my PhD on after completing my MA in History at Warwick University. In terms of my Wikipedia contributions to the area, I think all of my major contributions have been to topics on Airborne Warfare. Operation Varsity is a Featured Article; 11th Airborne Division is an A-Class; 17th Airborne Division and 13th Airborne Division are Good Articles; Operation Tonga is currently B-Class and being reviewed for GA-Class; and currently I'm working on Battle of Fort Eben-Emael and hoping to get it to GA-Class. I also have a selection of airborne-related books in my library, and Warwick University Library - which I have access to for the next year - has an even larger selection which I can easily use.

Thanks for any help you can give me on the subject, Skinny87 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Milhist W0.7: update
This has gone to all the participants:

Thank you very much for your help in our review of the W0.7-nominated articles, which has proved to be a very worthwhile exercise. As the number of sub-standard articles found was much higher than anticipated, the coordinators are currently considering how best to follow this up, given the project's limited resources and the short time span – under three weeks - for making improvements.

The review has been a very worthwhile exercise and will lead to a major quality improvement initiative in the very near future. In the meantime, if you found any articles that you feel you could easily fix, I'd be very grateful if you invested a little time doing so. Please also feel free to nominate any articles for inclusion which you feel were overlooked. The procedure for this is here and the nominations should be made here. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is for you:

Withdrew Olmec from Good Article nomination
Wandalstouring, I have withdrawn Olmec from Good Article nomination. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
Fair point about the Armoured Cavalry subsection being in the wrong place. I've moved the text to the Specialists subsection of Unit Types. I've also made the point clear (as it was not previously) that cataphract squadrons were virtually all in the comitatus. I see no need for a dedicated subsection on cataphract armour as there was nothing distinctive about 4th century cataphract equipment. EraNavigator 1 Oct 2008

Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA1
✅ (by the guy who actually wrote the article, not me! =D) &mdash;<font face="Monotype Corsiva"> the _ ed 17  &mdash; 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

W0.7
I've done the composite lists but not written the instructions. These, in any case, would only summarise the discussion here. I've done the largest list which took about 90 mins. I'm not around tomorrow but you are familiar enough with the secondary objectives to make a start if you still wish to do so. I'll pick up again on Sunday (unless I'm home earlier than expected tomorrow). All the best, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 21:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Expert Tag on article Olmec?
See my comments on the article talk page. I'm puzzled why you called for an expert? Thanks Rsheptak (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * and I am puzzled as to why you took over an existing GA review. At the time of your input no-one (and that includes me) had asked for a second opinion, the review was not added to GA1 and I have to assume you had not noticed that it was listed as being under review. Please look at GA procedure before you take over another GA review. With Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Olmec second reviewer

 * Dear GA reviewer,

The following appeared on an editors talk page on 23 September with the opening remarks of "I'm GA reviewing Olmec. After working through the article for the first time there are lots of  tags"...etc My concerns are that (1) you took over a review unfamiliar with the GA process. - though you have since reviewed and passed Execution of Lucy and James Sample (though without any GA1 or history of the review) - and Carrier Air Wing Six(2) The ongoing work the editors were undertaking has just stopped by the addition of 46 fact tags. I am going to ask them to reapply so that I can continue with the process. It is though entirely up to them, and not acritic of you, wikipedia is a complex thing. Thanks - Grip / rant over.Edmund Patrick – confer 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I started the review of the article 13 September
 * I had completed a second review on 20 September
 * from reading the talk pages and history you felt the best way to assist the article to achieve GA was to add 46 tags.
 * none of this has appeared in any GA1 etc
 * "Don't call me a noob." (sp.) show me where and I will apologise, and if you have done more GAs that I seem to know well done, can I ask when will you start doing them correctly? When I sought others advise it was stated by one editor "My view is that the second reviewer acted improperly in taking over from you, and his/her subsequent tagging of the article was little short of vandalism" so lets leave it at that. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
Check out the extra para I added to Supply Infrastructure section in Late Roman army to discuss transport of supplies. Cheers EraNavigator (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Late Roman army
It's true that non-Romans could produce as good, or even better, weapons and armour than the Romans. But the point about fabricae is that they could produce much greater quantities and of much more consistent quality than the small-scale forges of the barbaricum (as for the Persians, I do make an exception for them in the text). Hence the Roman prohibition on the export of arms and armour from the empire, which implies that Roman equipment was much in demand among the barbari. In the barbaricum, weapons could be very good at the top end, but of variable quality at the lower end of the price range. Jones' work is old (1964), but the sources he uses for transport costs (mainly Egyptian papyri) remain valid today. Jones remains essential for study of the late Roman empire because of the comprehensive nature of his coverage of the literary and papyrus evidence. Where he is weak (and out of date) is on archaeological evidence. But none of the latter contradicts his information about transport. I can't see how you can shorten the text without losing useful info. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews
Hi Wandal! I'm just dropping you a note to remind you that you have four open GA reviews on the GAN page, all of which have been open for a week or more and none of which seem to be that active. I'm not trying to be pushy, just wanting to remind you if it was the case that you'd forgotten about them. Drop me a note if you'd like any help with them. Dana boomer (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Was wondering if you'd had time to look at the articles you have under review at GAN. If you don't have time to finish reviewing them, I'd be happy to take them on. Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations for light infantry statement in triarii article
You'll see the citations you ask for. There are other references to this sort of thing in Sallust's Jugurthine war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porsenna1 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

W07 checklists
You did volunteer :) Are you free yet to take one on? They're here. Many thanks in advance, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 05:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, here. As we don't control what is kept and what is removed, we have no other option.
 * I've slightly edited your mod to instructions2, by the way. From "one or more" to "one or two". -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help on that. We have three left, grabbed but untouched. It will be interesting to see if they get finished. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notice
Please see. Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in but Wandalstouring is following Milhist consensus. There was a lengthy discussion about this article a month or so back and consensus was that casualty figures need direct citation. These are often highly contentious. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the issue with the numbers (from my work on the 9/11 article, I know that there can exist different numbers for the same incident). That being said, I still think it would be better to use sources that already exist on Wikipedia instead of removing tons of content. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Olmec
I have zero expertise in meso-american archaeology and I'm not a good source for reviewing articles dealing with this area.. sorry I was of no help regards --Boris (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

about dt23
Sorry to bother you but i just noticed a while ago back when dt23 raised that dispute about the page "list of battles by casualties" that when he resgined he asked an administrator to block before he left for afganistan. And the administrator actually did it. Isnt that against the rules--Sharpterov (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

He asked the admin to block HIM. his page. sorry, forgot to mention that part. He asked the admin to block his page .--Sharpterov (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Equites
I have just upgraded my start on equites. While the article can still benefit from some further expansion, I think there is enough there to deserve B status. Would you please assess and grade? Vale EraNavigator (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely discussion of the equites as cavalry (as opposed to as a social class) is more appropriate to articles on the military formations (legion etc)? But you are right that the social/political aspect could do with more work. EraNavigator (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Forgive me, but I simply don't follow your logic on this point. The article is entitled the Equestrian order i.e. the equites as a social class. It's not the right place for a discussion of the equipment and tactics of the Roman Republican cavalry (which BTW was not composed solely of equites, but of many members of the 2nd class too). By the same logic, my article Peregrinus (Roman) (to which you did award B) should contain details of the equipment and tactics of the auxiliary regiments, on the grounds that these were mainly staffed by peregrini. This info properly belongs to the article on the auxilia, just as the Republican cavalry belongs to Roman legion. (Although, embarassingly, my equites article contains much more detail about the Republican cavalry than the B-rated and unsourced Roman legion!).

(2) I have now addressed the problems with the social and political aspects. I've expanded the article considerably, adding a section on early Rome and one on the late empire to give a full chronology. There is no way this does not qualify for a B (indeed it could reasonably be submitted for A class). So I invite you to read it through again and to reconsider your assessment. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. It was not me that changed the title (see Discussion page). It was already Equestrian order when you looked at it. What missing informnation are you referring to? EraNavigator (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You thought you were looking at equites because the latter is linked to equestrian order. The move was done in August but I had nothing to do with it. I agree with you that we need an article that looks at Roman Republican cavalry in depth (perhaps as a section of Roman cavalry?) or a new section of Roman legion. But what I would ask you to please do now is to read through equestrian order and assess it as an article on the equites as a social class. EraNavigator (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the B-grade. Now that I've upgraded equestrian order even further, how about going the whole way and submitting it for A-class? I challenge you to find a more detailed and clearer expose of the Roman equites anywhere on the internet. PS: I think the title of the article needs a further change. I think it should be Equestrian order (Roman), to distinguish it from other knightly orders in history. Do you agree? EraNavigator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Scheidel's paper says that the mainstream consensus population of the Roman empire is 60-70 million. However, there is a minority view that it was 100 million or more. PS If you agree with my proposed title change, can you set up the request,as I'm unfamiliar with the procedure Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have yet to receive a response from you on (a) changing the name of Equestrian order to Equestrian order (Roman) and (b) submitting this article to A-class review. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dresden
Any help you could give on directly sourcing the contention that the neo-Nazis are just doing it for the attention would be very welcome. I don't know if you saw in the history, but there's actually an editor who keeps demanding that they be taken seriously - he's still upset that I yoinked the vast majority of the section devoted to them as being WP:UNDUE.

Uncharitably, it's possible that there's a motive to heavily slant the article to make it appear the bombing was justified. I just recently got involved, and have been slowly trying to restore good content that was deleted to make room for "These people say it was absolutely right, and on the other side these people say that it was sad but necessary and they deserved it anyway." arimareiji (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your GA review
You've put the review of Leves on hold for over 35 days now, normal procedure is an article is failed after being on hold for 7 days. Please finish the review or let someone else do it. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 14:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it worthy of B class yet in your opinion? I've done quite a bit of improving.--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">123 17:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * hmm...I had always assumed they velties came into being around the time of the second punic war, but "Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome by Lesley Adkins" just says "in the mid 2nd century BC" and Cannae by Gregory Daly says they were introduced around 211 BC, and he claims livy also said this. He also says they lacked shields and only carried a few light javelins. --<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">123 20:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pat Southern says that the velites were in existence in 221 BC. I've changed the article so it jsut says around the "mid 3rd century BC"--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">123 20:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Persian Wars
Please accept my apologies, I didn't realise it was policy. I suppose I should have noticed before now...anyway, I will try and leave an edit summary in future. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Core contest

 * I agree, it is very generous of you. I have sent you an e-mail. &mdash; BillC talk 01:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What happened? <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Count Blofeld 13:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Pyrrrhic Victories

 * Battle of Chosin Reservoir, Battle of the Imjin River, Battle of Guilford Court House, Battle of Cowan's Ford, Battle of Bunker Hill, Battle of Badajoz (1812), Battle of Grozny (1994–1995), Battle of Prague, Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands, Battle of Lützen (1632), Battle of Hab, Battle of Lansdowne, Battle of Modder River, Siege of Sevastopol (1854–1855) - Battle of Yalu River (1904), Battle of Nanshan, Siege of Port Arthur, Battle of Mukden, Battle of Kosovo, Battle of Mount Ortigara,  Battle of Gumbinnen, Battle of Loos,  Battle of Mars-la-Tour. Tttom1 (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

History of crossbows
Haudcivitas may have gotten frustrated with this edit by taking some of the same content from Crossbow to the History of crossbows article. I didn't do anything or say anything at the time because a.) there was continuing discussion on the talk page and b.) Haudcivitas seems to think that I'm "vandalizing" his contribs and I didn't want to fuel his fire so to speak. I thought I'd let you know since I see you straightened out the issues at the Crossbow article (thank you). Cheers, <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This kind of accusation won't win him any support. I don't think he knows what vandalism or troll mean and doesn't understand the effects from the accusations. He is bantering the terms around far too easily. He must get up on the wrong side of the bed fairly often. :) Cheers, <font face="High Tower Text" size="3px"><b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Images on talk pages
Non-free or suspected-non-free images should not be placed directly on talk pages per Wikipedia's image use policy. They should be wikilinked instead. Sometimes policy can and should be ignored, but I don't see this being the case here. I modified User talk:Stifle accordingly. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look
Image:Chinese crossbow man.jpg and Image:Peruvian crossbow usage.jpg were uploaded without specifying a source and their fair use is as problematic as Image:Serbia crossbow usage.jpg. I wouldn't mind if they were used to illustrate modern use of crossbows, but I have doubts that the user who uploaded them described them correctly. The Chinese crossbow man looks conspiciously like a policeman. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted one of them; the other two are marked for deletion as bad fair use. Thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war request
I've only now had time to take a look at the Military use of Crossbows section, I've been away for a few days. I'd agree that their use in counter-sniper activities are unlikely, and that the source doesn't seem to support the assertion.

ALR (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Equestrian order
I never received a response from you about submitting equestrian order for A-class. Instead someone (was it you?) submitted it for GA (and even this is on hold). This is an absurd situation. If something as trivial and superficial like hastati and the rest of that series can get GA, then surely equestrian order easily qualifies for A. Since I last communicated about this to you, I have further expanded the article to include comprehensive info on the equipment, tactics and campaign record of Roman Republican cavalry. Let me know your views on the article as it stands now. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Want to take a peek?
Wand-- would you care to peek at Talk:Horses_in_warfare where I think I have outlined some impasses we are at with the article and offer any insights to help us wind our way out? Peter and I are just fighting a lot at this point mostly over nothing huge, and some outside eyes will help. You can scan other parts of the talk page discussion if you choose, but I have worked on this damn article for what, two and a half YEARS now, and I am SOOOO ready to just haul it up the FA flagpole to see what happens. But if I don't go through the process, my fellow editors may derail it, so... help? Montanabw (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

what happened to your page lad
I came on your talk page the other day lad and it looked like someone put a whole article on your page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharpterov (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC) ehy lad what the hell is wrong with your page my god its digusting who did this--Sharpterov (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)