User talk:Wandalstouring/archive 6

₪

This user humbly begs the European Union to allow the U.S. state of Massachusetts to join.

See User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 1 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 2 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 3 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 4 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 5 for older edits

Some useful links:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page.

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: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:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/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...--TheFEARgod (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)

Wikipedia: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 — 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)

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.