User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:03, 31 August 2007

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 for older edits

Some useful links:

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.

Hello, crossbow

"Hi, could you name some sources for your edits in the crossbow article otherwise the information is not valid and can be deleted. Thank you. Wandalstouring 09:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)"

Which part are you refering to? It was a long time ago so I don't remember. Intranetusa 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request for Battle of Cape Esperance

There's a new peer review request for Battle of Cape Esperance that may be of interest to you; any input there would be appreciated. Thanks! Wandalstouring 15:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's me, cla68, that submitted that article. I changed my signature recently. CLA 22:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aviation history of Bangladesh

You wrote, "Wikipedia is an anarchy. You can't order people to expand sth. If you want work done, then do it yourself." And, I guess, you have a little misunderstanding here. If you don't mind, I'd like to differ on few points here.

Wikipedia is not an anarchy. (see: Wikipedia is not an anarchy)
Rather, Wikipedia is collaboration of a community of volunteers like you and I, and 4 million other people. (see: Wikipedia community and Wikipedia:Wikipedians)
Asking for expert attention or a collaboration is standard practice at Wikipedia.
You'll be surprised at the level of help articles can get if you ask for it.
And, finally it's favor for favor community. For every help request I post, I receive two. And, at least half of the times I get to respond to the requests.

Saying all that, I can see where you are coming from - the article you are talking about is in pretty bad shape, and you may be are irritated to have such a badly shaped article on your plate. Sorry, I guess, I need to work more on the projects/articles I'm getting myself into. Thanks for opening my eyes. Cheers. Aditya Kabir 13:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

AfD 69.150.51.11 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Thanks, WT, for the cool userbox, which I've added to my user-page. semper fictilis 12:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contact

Since I am not very good with the code, can you help me fit the contact userbox onto my userpage? Thanks. Beit Or 13:58, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: userbox contact

By "shortcut", do you mean a shorter template name (e.g. {{WPMILHIST Contact}}), or something else? Kirill 18:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. I think I fixed Beit Or's page too, although I'm not quite sure if it was the effect he was looking for. Kirill 18:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Punic War

Please check before accusing others of vandalism. From Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum: "When Cato insisted "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed), Corculum responded that Carthage must be saved." From Scipio: "Ironically, another Scipio (Scipio Nasica) had opposed any further war with Carthage, arguing that Rome needed a strong rival to keep her older values." From [1]: "Scipio Nasica held the contrary opinion that Carthage ought to be spared so that the Roman discipline, which was already relaxing, might be preserved through fear of her." From [2]: "Thereupon without fail, Scipio Nasica, in his turn, would make answer: 'And I, for my part, think that Carthage should be left standing!'". This is just a quick search on Google. GhePeU 12:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Review of Structural_history_of_the_Roman_military

Hi Wandalstouring, since you are an editor interested in the Roman military but have not contributed to this particular article I was wondering if you were able to assist in the A-class review of this article please located at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Structural_history_of_the_Roman_military. Any suggestions you can make for approval would be appreciated - I plan to take the article to FA but given how tough that process is I would like to get as many problems sorted out in the A-class review prior to submitting it for FA - the more suggestions you can make for imrpvoement the better! Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)

Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), an article reviewed by you for the A-class of WP:MILHIST, is now a Featured Article Candidate. You may want to see how it has changed since then, suggest further improvements, address current comments and vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:crossbow

Hi, Unfortunately I don't have any information about warfare and weapons. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Selby's Chinese Archery (ISBN 9622095011) has a good chunk of his book devoted to the use of the crossbow. I suggest you look the book up to help greatly expand the meager Asia section of the crossbow article.(Ghostexorcist 01:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Much busyness

Thought I'd let you know, I'm not very active at the moment because I've recently started a new job. Lots of travel, four hours a day, so I'm not in a position to pay much attention here. ALR 20:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good luck with the new job. Wandalstouring 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: early muslim military history

I can go ahead and do it today; does that work for you? Kirill 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that we were considering this as essentially being a history of the "Muslim states" during the period, not necessarily the period as a whole. (I don't really care all that much either way, to be honest; but I think that listing it under periods might be more confusing.) Kirill 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, okay; that's fine with me. Kirill 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, definitely not my area of expertise. :-) Kirill 16:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language in Council House Fight

Kirill Wandalstouring One of our contributors had some concerns about the neutrality of the language in my new article Council House Fight. He, and several other good folks, such as Jonashart and Ewulp, who I asked for help, worked hard on it, and I think the language is certainly now extremely neutral. Would you two be kind enough to review it, and see if it is appropriate to remove the tag? I have asked all editors involved in the review to do so also, but it never hurts to have you looking also! I have significantly more information to add to the article from my last trip to the Library of Congress, but want to make sure the neutral tone issue is settled before fleshing it out. (Once that is completed, the Texas series is pretty much up to snuff -- all 5 new ones I wrote are up to B status! -- and I am switching to all the Mongol series existing articles, with 7 new ones I am adding) Thanks!old windy bear 23:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: wikistress hotline

I'd really have preferred a bit more reaction from people before we set anything up, since this is an effort that will really need wide participation to work. In the absence of any objections, though, I suppose we can set up something light-weight and informal in a few days or so, and see where we can go from there.

Are you generally okay with the two-sided approach I had proposed (i.e. a combination of central discussion area with more personal outreach), or did you have some other setup in mind for this? Kirill 17:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punic War

I have been working on a structure for all the battles of the Second Punic war. My idea is that there are three theaters and three phases. The Theaters are Western-, Central- and Eastern Mediterranean and the phases are from 219 until 213, and from 212 until 207 and from 206 until 202. What's your opinion, is this an acceptable approach? Wandalstouring 06:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that in broad terms this is the right way to go at it, but I'd suggest the periods need a little adjustment. This is how the Cambridge Ancient History (1st ed.) breaks this down:

I Hannibal's Invasion of Italy

i) Outbreak of war

ii) The rival war plans

iii) Hannibal's march to Italy

iv) The Ticinus and Trebia

v) Trasimene

vi) Fabius Cunctator

vii) Cannae

II The Roman Defensive

i) The invasion of Spain (218-215)

ii) The war in Sicily

iii) The advance and defeat of the Scipios (The Roman disaster in Spain)

iv) The Roman resistance in Italy after Cannae

v) The taking of Capua

III Scipio and Victory

i) Nova Carthago

ii) Baecula, Iliipa, the conquest of Spain

iii) The Metaurus

Hope this helps. semper fictilis 19:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you running for reelection? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:RJASE1

You left a note for him on his talk page. He has permanently left the project. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Indian War

As requested I'll be very happy to take a look over the article this weekend. Flat out at work at the moment so not before then I'm afraid.

Regards

ALR 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your long and dedicated service as a project coordinator and your many contributions to the structure and operations of the project. For the coordinators, Kirill 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 [[User:ALR|ALR]] 21:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
+== WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves ==
+[[Image:WikiChevronsOakLeaves.png|left]] By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the ''WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves'' in recognition of your long and dedicated service as a project coordinator and your many contributions to the structure and operations of the project.  For the coordinators, [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)