User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 3

Roman-Spartan War

I found a site which I think might have some info. Have a look at it: http://www.geocities.com/nikmark31082/AncientWorlds/Sparta_MassenaWebsite/Sparta-At_War.html and where did you want me to put the info on the Thracian helm.Kyriakos 00:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is only based on Thucydides. Xenophon gives a different account and there are sources about their differing shields and swords (that was a very late development in the Spartan army, so if you write about them in general it is of no big interest, but matters a lot for the time from CleomenesIII to Nabis) Wandalstouring 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some possible sources:

• V. Hanson : The Western Way of War

• V. Hanson : Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece

• A. Snodgrass : The Hoplite Reform and History

• J. Lazenby : The Killing Zone

• J. Lazenby : The Spartan Army

• http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates1.html and http://www.ne.jp/asahi/luke/ueda-sarson/Iphikrates2.html

• See also Appian for Cretan archersWandalstouring 03:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the article can pass FA? Kyriakos 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan War Illustrations

Hello. :) In response to your request, I don't normally do history illustrations, but I would be happy to have a go. I'm afraid I'm a little busy at the moment, but when I have some more spare time, I'll have a look and see what I can do! --Xanthine 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test 1

How it works: The comments are edits on a subpage of the articles talkpage called comment page here. It works pretty much like any talk page with the benefit that it encourages people to leave us some feedback. The idea is to implement this feature in our quality articles and thus find out how we can possibly improve our work or what readers specifically care for, etc.

Reader feedback: Leave a comment or view comments

Blank for implementation. Layout still under construction.

Reader feedback: *comment_page* &action=edit&section=new Leave a comment or view comments

Insert the name for the comment page instead of *comment_page*. It is an external link, so any blank(" ") gets substituted by "_". Wandalstouring 14:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Code save(for various purposes)

Reader feedback: please leave a comment or view current comments

Now even more simple:

Reader feedback: please leave a comment or view current comments

Wandalstouring 20:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA articles with testtemplate:

Alcibiades

AK-47

Pericles

Medal of Honor

Operation Wrath of God

Battle of Moscow

A-class articles with testtemplate:

Roman-Spartan War

Ho Chi Minh trail

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

Re: Reader Feedback

Where would you want this feedback directed: to the article's talk page, or to somewhere else? (Keep in mind that, at least at the moment, anons can't create new pages; so presumably you wouldn't want to have them editing a page that may not already exist ahead of time.) Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we necessarily need separate pages? I would think that placing the feedback directly on the article's talk page would be more useful, since we're pretty much guaranteed that the article's editors will be watching that. Having the comments go somewhere else would create a problem with getting that information to the people who are actually going to deal with it. Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you'd probably want to put it on a subpage (e.g. Talk:Article/Feedback) rather than in another namespace (which will make the developers mad at you). In any case, we now need some way to let the editors of an article know when that page actually starts receiving feedback; some sort of bot monitoring, maybe? Kirill Lokshin 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally: {{Reader Feedback}}. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that I had fixed it so that it works; you just have to call the right magic words to format the link for you. Kirill Lokshin 19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest running some small-scale tests before making any big presentations of this; we'd sort of like to have a bit of practical data to discuss, rather than just making assumptions. I would suggest putting the template on the TFA (which is probably the highest-traffic article) for a few days; then we might actually have some idea of what feedback we'll be able to get from this, and can discuss the issue somewhat more concretely. Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't advise putting this on more than a handful of articles at this point, incidentally. We want to make sure we can actually get useful results before we start attracting too much attention. Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, looks good. I've done some more fiddling with the code to present a more meaningful prompt for anyone adding a comment; feedback pages should show up in Category:Wikipedia reader feedback as well. Kirill Lokshin 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to do anything manually, since the category will be added by the preloaded code through the template; it'll just get added to any existing pages the next time someone makes a comment. Kirill Lokshin 20:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template:ReaderFeedback

I nominated template:ReaderFeedback for deletion. Please see WP:TFD. Savidan 02:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. As I said, people wouldn't like it. ;-)

(I'm not convinced that there's any need for a template for the B-Class stuff, given that people don't seem to support any formal process in the first place, incidentally.) Kirill Lokshin 17:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand exactly how you could use this template in the non-article space, but if you make a note on the template talk page clarifying that it is only for use in the user and project spaces, I'll withdraw my nomination. Savidan 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wandalstouring 18:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalons

It took far too long I hope your not disapointed, it was the work of several hours sadly dispersed over the last 2 months. Take a look and give me your thoughts. Nothing but the background pseudo-topographie is unchangeble. --Dryzen 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. Lets see what they'll say.--Dryzen 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I left some comments on the WikiProject Maps talk page. (And re-reading Jordanes account, I've realized that there is an error in Battle of Chalons. -- llywrch 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

military knives

If you're speaking of the Ernest Emerson article, take a look. Most of the knives are not big at all. In fact aside from a handful of models, they are pocketknives. RC Hardness is 56-59 and steel is ATS-34 or 154 CM. Read the article and see what you think. --Mike Searson 20:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Formulating some guidelines

Mmm, I suppose I could try and copyedit the thing, but...

Are you intending to propose them as an extension to the Roman naming conventions? (They're not limited to military figures, obviously, so they probably wouldn't do too well as mere guidelines within the project.) The current formulation that you've proposed is clear enough; while some copyediting might help, it's probably best done after it's already adopted into a more-or-less final form. So the best thing might be to propose your text at wherever you want it to be added (or as an entirely new naming convention page, if you want) and make sure that the proposal has the needed support before worrying too much about cleaning up the wording. Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was somewhat confused by the fact that a number of the examples in your proposal were definitely non-military. Is it intended that the guideline cover them? If so, it needs to be proposed elsewhere; our authority, such as it is, only extends to military topic. If not, we can probably get away with just putting the guideline on the Classical task force page and linking to it. Kirill Lokshin 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry tactics

Fair enough, I stand corrected Nik Sage 18:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the SS Unit order of battle translations

Based on feedback from you, Kirill and Carbinieri, I've come up with the following:

• Translate all terms in the order of battle
• Unless the English terms are extremely similar to the German terms, leaving the German terms in parentheses after the English.
• If we have articles related to the German term, linking to that article (Panzerjäger, for example).

This would result in things like "15th Tank Hunter (Panzerjäger) Detachment" - does this seem acceptable? Carom 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my native language, but a translation of the meaning as "15th Tank Destroyer (Panzerjäger)Detachment" (anti-tank gunners; tank destroyer troops[1]) might be better than a word for word translation. "Jäger" have traditionally been the more loyal élite forces from rural areas. And start using http://dict.leo.org/ (!!!!) it is nowadays the standard dictionary among German speaking people for translating from German to English and from English to German. Wandalstouring 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've seen both Tank Hunter and Tank Destroyer in the literature, but I'll go with "Destroyer" if you think it's a better choice. And I do use dict.leo.org (and have been since I first started taking German as freshman in college), but I like to get independent confirmation that I'm choosing the best translation, as my German is only average. Carom 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any unit in an English speaking country that is refered to as tank hunter unit? I doubted you had used leo because this translation would have been easy to to look up. Wandalstouring 21:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was that I have seen "Panzerjäger" translated both ways - not on leo, but in WWII literature. At any rate, I believe you are correct that "Tank Destroyer" is the more common term for these types of units in English-speaking armies, so I will use that. Carom 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you visit Tank destroyer, you will find the German tank hunters listed as such. I think the term tank hunter is pretty limited to WWII translations. Wandalstouring 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Carom 21:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: move to task force

Which is why the question is still up on the main project talk page, of course! ;-)

(The idea is to have the actual question exposed to a wide audience, but also to have any lengthy discussion of it take place on the lower-volume task force page. It's not really a topic of interest to the project as a whole—anyone who actually knows or cares about Roman soldiers can easily follow the link—and the main talk page has been suffering a lot of bloat recently.) Kirill Lokshin 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About crossbow mentioned in Arts of War

see here[2]--Ksyrie 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused.You open this file and try to find the keyword crossbow,And you will find some crossbows mentioned in this book.--Ksyrie 00:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the search function of Internet expoler or firefox.It will be very useful.--Ksyrie 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination for coordinator

Hi Fayssal

I wanted to inform you that I would like to nominate you as candidate for the coordinator election. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/February 2007

Greatings Wandalstouring 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wandalstouring. I appreciate your trust on me. It's a pleasure. I've had a look at some of the tasks involved and think it is quite a huge responsibility though very interesting. I will have some time reviewing them before i decide on that before January 29th, 2007. I'll get back to you soon. Cheers. -- Szvest - ^Wiki me up ® 13:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tuck this in here. Thankyou for thinking of me as a candidate for MilHist co-ordinator. I very much appreciate that and having reviewed the requirement think it's entirely practical for me. I'll be very happy to accept the nomination. ALR 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Spartan War

Hey Wandal, I am planning on re-nominating the article for FAC soon but is there anything you think needs to be attended to first. Kyriakos 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic Greek Genocide

Firstly, I love your subtle petition for MA membership in the EU. If only it were that easy.

Secondly, I should like your advice regarding the issue of the Pontic Greek Genocide article - not in terms of your views on what the content should be, but rather, how to resolve it. I've been watching the discussion for the last few days, contributed a bit here and there where I felt I had something worthwhile to contribute. But ultimately, while the discussion does not seem quite as heated as many of the China/Korea/Japan or Arab/Israel debates I've sludged through, it does seem to have come to something of a deadlock. I am unfortunately largely unaware of what sorts of official or semi-official options there are for this sort of thing, where discussion and straw polls yield no consensus. How do admins, coordinators, Arbitration Committee, or others fit into this? Please see User talk:LordAmeth#Pontic Greek Genocide for a bit more on what's going on with this. Thanks. LordAmeth 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2d Battalion 20th Field Artillery (United States)

Thank you for moving the page without any further discussion, however, the main change I wanted to make was changing the 2d to 2nd and add a comma between the battalion and regiment. Which I will now do. Dan D. Ric 13:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you got me. Dan D. Ric 13:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I said you got me, I was agreeing with you. The page is Now 2d Battalion, 20th Artillery (United States) Dan D. Ric 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, 2d Battalion, 20th Field Artillery (United States) Dan D. Ric 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late in Pontic Greek Genocide

Cauze,I am busy in Chinese wiki for a same problem of naming which two or three parties in Chinese wikipedia cann't make agreement and try to using the techinical method to sovling the dispute.I have just left my new idea in the talk page.--Ksyrie 16:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pontic Greek genocide

Hopefully, I'll be excused for another 24 hours or so to write my statement, as I cannot spend any considerable amount of time on Wikipedia at the moment. Beit Or 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman-Spartan War

Hey Wandal, sure I'll get on it straight away. But if I have no luck I will ask my mum who speaks ancient Greek and got a degree in history in Greece. By the way are you going to nominate yourself for coordinator because if you do you'll get my vote. By. Kyriakos 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Wandalstouring 22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I foudn it out: full citizen Spartan in ancient Greek is Λακεδαιμόνος. Sparta and Lacaedomonia have the same name as Lacaedomonia mean land of the Laconians. The Greek name for that word is Λακεδαιμονία. Hope it helps and also why did you needs those words. Kyriakos 22:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will later improve the article as we should use the best terms possible. do you know agoge, syssitia, hoplite and phalangite(Macdonian units are sometimes called peltast while they have a sarissa or javelins)? Wandalstouring 23:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

on books in other languages

Yes, surely there are many interesting things written in many languages. And maybe some of them can be included here. But I doubt that the items that I'm complaining about would be worth including in any case. Baltrush is a well-established academic (a professor in Berlin): but the Beck's series in which *this* book appears is for popular "light" books. (I own several in this series, including those of Funke, Eck, and Jehne--ich kann Deutsch lesen). In the end, I won't make that big of fuss about the Baltrusch. My real problem is with the various regional histories of Mani, which are unlikely to be valuable for specific questions of ancient history. Semperf 01:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that light compared to mainstream history books, but it's neither in-depth scientific. It greatly varies from book to book, however they are all professors as far as I read. I can't help you with the Mani issue because I never checked it, that was Kyriakos part. I do agree that we should keep things to a minimum of foreign language and regional history material. Whenever it is possible to find an alternative solution, it should be prefered and deleteable details could be mentioned on the talkpage first. Wandalstouring 01:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punic war bibliography

I'd have no objection to the two works you cited--Ameling's name I recognize, but I can't remember for what. Here is some English bibliography for the Punic Wars:

• H. Devijver, E. Lipiński (Hrsg.), Punic Wars (Studia Phoenicia 10), 1989
• B. D. Hoyos, Unplanned Wars. The Origins of the First and Second Punic War, 1998
• J. F. Lazenby, Hannibal's War. A Military History of the Second Punic War, 1978

I suspect on that for the Punic Wars the best bibliography is going to be German and French. Semperf 03:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. About Goldsworthy, I have a friend who was at university with him. (He'd agree with your assessment.) Semperf 03:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test

^[[#cnote_{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}[›]]]  

 

^[N]

1.^[3]

2.[[#ref_{{{1}}}|↑]]

3.^[{{{PAGENAME}}}#endnote_]

^[4]{{{PAGENAME}}}

^

{{href|test1|test2}}

bla

bla

bla

bla

bla

^ test1: test2

Pontic Greek Genocide article

It strikes me that there is little appetite within the editor community to actually find a solution to the issue, in particular with a group of independent voices expressing a position. Might there be another approach to resolution?ALR 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is rather the pattern. As soon as one side is willing to give in and achieve a solution from the other side an editor launches an attack that questions the whole process. In my opinion this is more of a problem to lose control. As long as one side feels not safe enough that it will win it is not sure whether to accept. Naturally the persons involved are all smart and diligent editors but the groups they form co-act in an unproductive dynamic. The result is that they can continue to accuse someone else and "try to find a solution". Another point is that for their goal they preferably jump between topics and get things into waters where no decision is possible or only one in their favor.

Possibly a bit similar to Northern Ireland, but without decreasing live conditions in an ongoing conflict. I don't know how to solve it. I fancy with a hijacking commando and a scorched earth fixiation (and I don't count on many Greeks/Turks voting me for coordinator). Next point, you could yourself insert your candidature. Wandalstouring 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new citation style

I have merged {{cref}} and {{hnote}} into a new style: {{href}} The current version of {{href}} works together with {{cnote}}, same as {{cref}} I have been thinking about developing a template with a hovering title showing the specific page number and if you click you are taken directly to the bibliography. Furthermore there is the possibility for a difference between the notes from different books. This template can also be modified to serve for notes with more info on the link presented as hovering title and per click you are taken to the complete note. However, these two features should be disambiguated. One choice was numbers for citations and letters for notes. Essentially I don't like a wildfire of different styles spreading over the articles. We should have some agreements on what to use and discuss innovations first. Wandalstouring 20:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I shall test this one out. My only reservation currently is that it breaks up the flow of the text more having multiple characters in superscript. I'm not really 100% happy with any of the citation styles available at the minute. I'll have an experiment with this one. BTW, Campaign history of the Roman military will hopefully be going through a peer review/FA self-nomination shortly, so any comments you have on it for improvement/correction would be much appreciated. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: lots of new templates

Clever! I see a few technical points that need to be looked at, though:

• How broken are these in browsers that can't mouse-over links (e.g. screen readers, portable devices, text-only browsers, etc.)? I suspect that we'll see a mix of dropping the note entirely and just putting it directly into the text.
• This won't work too well for longer content notes, since the tooltips don't display text over a certain length properly (or at least readably).
• What happens when the article is printed?

Beyond that, I'm still of the opinion that using the normal cite.php <ref> syntax is better in the long run—particularly as the developers are now adding new features to it (e.g. the clicked-note highlighting)—but this seems like a decent idea for the people who like to have multiple sections of footnotes. Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like before there is a clear reference to the book it is from in any printed version. However we might make it more sophisticated and list for example all cahapters/pages that were used and highlight them in case the specific reference is clicked, but also provide a quick title and page as a hovering text.

This is definetly not inteneded for longer content notes as hovering, but a hovering description where the link takes you. Wandalstouring 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a way to get incrementing numbers, of a sort; that's how {{ref}}/{{note}} work. It may be easier to start with those and just add the tooltip support to a copy of {{ref}} directly. Kirill Lokshin 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean; certainly, the ref/note system was in use quite extensively with little complaint. Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in (fairly widespread) use: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ref. Kirill Lokshin 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry Tactics, War elephants

Chau Ju-kua's work on his travels in Chola is cetainly not "nonsense" as you suggested. I have used a translation from 1912 beacause that is still one of the best English language versions (there are many more recent translations, which are less satisfactory because they abbreviate the text). The original is 800 years old, and contains first hand accounts of elephant cavalry. The age of the work increases, rather than decreases, its authority. IAmTheWarrior 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on history. Will try. Need time. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat 03:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please give the exact page of Chau Ju-kua, Travels in Chola you quote in cavalry tactics, so we can verify your statements (and add this information also to the other books you quote). Otherwise the information is not verifiable and must be deleted. Wandalstouring 11:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines never require the inclusion of the page number, even in a full citation. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Obviously as well, in your very substantial number of additions in this article, you have never included a reference with page numbers. IAmTheWarrior 15:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hello Wandalstouring, pardon the late and sparse replies, things have been keeping me busy away from wikipedia. Lookign at the map you wanted me to modify, I dont think it will be a problem to modify. You want all the red marks gone? How should it be named?

What did you have in mind for the Roman-Spartan War troop maps? --Dryzen 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on organizing the maps. Thanks. Kyriakos 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some preliminaries and it looks great, might just be a little tricky on working around the words. Weekend looks clear so I'dd like to be able ot present it to you sometime early next week. --Dryzen 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the [image:Peleponnese200.jpg|image] as promissed, you'll have two to choose form now. :oP --Dryzen 21:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The French speaking population of the internet and I will never forget your great service. Wandalstouring 08:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 visible nicks (where the lines and the lettering encountered), wasn't a long work at that either. To your approaval I gather? Should you ever have more pressing producitons you know how to reach me. Good luck on the wotes, yet I have the fealling you wont need it. Your work speaks for itself.--Dryzen 16:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Restructuring request area

I think you're right. I've been playing around with ways of trimming it down for some time; my general idea has basically been this:

1. Push requests out to task forces, using the open task sub-templates as much as possible.
2. Put other requests directly into {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
3. Get rid of the now-redundant requests page by putting the "disambiguation" for other places to get images/maps/etc. directly on WP:MILHIST#Resources.

Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Power

There is no definite answer on the issue. Some may argue Germany to be a middle-power, others to be a great power. There is no "official" list of great powers. Both ideas have equal merit. (see Italy or Japan) Signature^brendel 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a natural science. Listen here is how Wikipedia works. You have a source that states something. You add content from that source to an article. Then you find another source that contradicts your first source. What do you do? Go back and revert your initial edits? No! You put in content from that source as well. It is perfectly fine for an article to have information that contradicts itself. We are not counting the number of teddy bears on you nephews bed-side table. This a subjective topic and there may be several conflicting theories. There is not one truth, one right answer. There a bunch of ideas, each as valid as the other. Also please understand this. It does not matter what any government says. We are not discussing laws or trade agreements here. There are no formal agreements or laws stating what nation is a great power. The opinion of politicans does not carry any more weight than that of journalists or professors. Signature^brendel 05:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. There is no right answer. It's all freakin' theory. I'm sorry but what you are saying does not make any sense. This is not a government matter- politicans are entitled to their opinions as is anyone else. This is a NON-FACTUAL debate. BTW: Politican sciene is a social science. In the social science "scientific theorems" often contradict each other! Signature^brendel 05:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used the word "offical" which does not apply as it implies there to be one single truth. Also to be frank with you, your posts are really quite difficult to read and statements such as "And you could stop making blatant mix up edits that do not draw a line between science, government positions and media." just don't make any sense. And what does "Do you need more edits on wikipedia?" mean? Do I need more edits??? uh... Signature^brendel 05:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new phrasing works for me (It's exactely the way something like this should be stated). And no offense but your posts can be difficult to understand. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krings

The most relevant pages of the Krings volume (which are in an article contributed to the volume by Bondi) are in a pdf that can be downloaded here: http://www.mytempdir.com/1200460. (I didn't read the content at all; I hope this helps.) Semperf 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chau Ju-kua, Travels in Chola

Probably. The Chinese Wikipedia page for this book can be found here in zh:诸蕃志. I'll look for the book online... Which page is it needed? Can you give it to me? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 04:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punic inscriptions

Hi Fayssal

could you perhaps help me a bit with research on Punic inscriptions? I think that someone fluent with a Semitic language and the Maghreb might have it easier. There exist several complete catalogues of Punic inscriptions (there are found more and more texts in recent times). Problem is that the translations seem rather complicated and are often hotly disputed. Many German and English sources do not use the Punic inscriptions for their research, denoting them commonly as formalistic religious blabla. However, they do definetly contain more information. Especially in the Maghreb (Tunisia) and France research is published on the topic (in French). Wandalstouring 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wandalstouring. I'll be happy to help you. Could you please guide me to the material in question? -- Szvest - ^Wiki me up ® 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this website is a newly discovered inscription mentioned at the bottom. I couldn't retrieve all its discussed interpretations(important). The above one from Massilia is neither mentioned in my sources, although I have some clue that there was a constant Punic presence with their own temples in this town(less important).

A really interesting piece seems to be catalogized as CIS I 5510.10 I have in Near Eastern Studies, January 1994 an article by Philip C. Schmitz: The Name 'Agrigentum' in a Punic Inscription (CIS I 5510.10). It is really intruguing because it seems to be about a military context and does mention the names and title of Punic commanders that are classified as strategoi by our Greek sources. Thus the official title for a Punic general would be 'rbm' (literally meaning: the great/the great one). I could scan and send you this article as soon as I have a scanner within reach (Monday). The problem is that Schmitz argues for an interpretation and I have not a clue what the current consensus is or whether there is any. Wandalstouring 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background. I'll have to do a simple reaserch before presenting my 2¢. I'll get back to you soon. -- Szvest - ^Wiki me up ® 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list form

Thanks for showing me that. I've started trying to use my favoured one (2b) at Military campaigns of the Samnite Wars. It is like yours, except for the colouring, and I've slipped the dates into the Battle column. (This us having a lot of wasted space under the date; and less wasted space under battle name). Tell me what you think. (The colouring can easily be changed. Maybe the purple is better: the yellow is too much like the "you've got a message" bar.) Semperf 17:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks! I've changed 'remarks' to 'details'. Semperf 20:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is still a bit of a muddle. What I have is for now having a list about the Samnite Wars and then if the experiment is successful, changing the title of the article so that another war or two can be added. Right now it is "Military campaigns of…", which is the best I could think of. Since renaming is a simple thing to do, I suggest we leave the title until last. (That is, let's decide the title from what it actually turns out to be, rather than the other way around.) Semperf 21:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wandalstouring

Thanks for the suggestion for the ancient sources. I'll get around to that eventually, but I'm going to work on filling in data for a while first. Semperf 21:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cretan piracy

I'll check on Cretan piracy, but it might take me some time. (My personal ancient history library is a bit disorganized at the moment. An old prof of mine left me about 3000 books and alot of it is in boxes still.) I'm personally sceptical whether a desire to suppress Cretan piracy could in itself be much of a motivating factor--it took the Romans forever to take piracy seriously (M. Antonius in 102 and M. Antonius Creticus in 74 seem to have accomplished little). Much more likely is suspicion, no doubt inflamed by the Achaeans, of Nabis' revolutionary tendencies, possibly combined with the historical reputation of Spartans as warriors. Semperf 18:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge on the Roman motives, but I doubt that they did not take piracy seriously. If I remember correctly Hamilcar Barca's warfare did also rely on amphibious assaults on Italy (that's effectively piracy). With Pompey's expedition against pirates the problem was that he needed lots of authority and prior all Roman nobles had fiercely inhibited everyone but themselves to be appointed for the task. Livy points out in book 46 that even Pompey the Great was not completly ignorant of offers by the Cretan pirates. Why the previous expeditions were no complete success needs to be analyzed, but that's a different topic. So far it is only intended to show the interests of the Cretans in the war and why they did send 1,000 selected warriors to help their buddy Nabis. But you really can't explain these Free Laconians occupying the whole coast without mentioning something like pirates and the fact that the Cretans did lose all their naval bases in Lacedaemonia. To what extend the Acheans were able and willing to make their own decisions is another POV. Wandalstouring 20:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm, a really intresting topic Cretan pirates is. THe Cretans and the Spartans had been associted for centuries. In fact some Cretan cities had claimed to have been colonies of Sparta. The Spartans first became involved with Cretans when the Spartans helped the people of Lyttos in the foreign war against the Knossians in 346 BC. I remember while I was researching for the Cretan War ready about Nabis making an alliance with the Cretan pirates. I tried to find it today but I have had no luck so far. I will have another look and when I find the chapter I with give it to you. Hope it helps. Kyriakos 05:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khaybar

Thank you for your comments there, and I hope you're on that article to stay: it definitely needs a neutral third party. I was considering an RfC at WikiProject Military History. Beit Or 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second this completely.Proabivouac 10:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: B-class assessment

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to; a direct link to WPMILHIST where? Kirill Lokshin 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Kirill Lokshin 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a pre-filled-out checklist that will be displayed when the parameters aren't present in the call yet; example at Talk:9th SS Panzer Division Hohenstaufen. Is this anything close to what you had in mind, or have I misunderstood what you were talking about? Kirill Lokshin 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Kirill Lokshin

Not easily, no; it would require making a second copy of the code in the template. Probably easier just to remove the brackets from the form. Kirill Lokshin 17:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Water

I've had a look, I don't see the addition that you're referring to, unless you mean the line about the Cole incident?ALR 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that the whole paragraph had previously been removed and then re-inserted. From my knowledge of amphibious operations I have no problem with it, but anything I have that could source it is pretty shaky, course notes and similar. I'm happy to take it out.ALR 21:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Afrika Corps

I think "generalmarsch" is the rough equivialant of the "Assembly" or perhaps "To the Colors" calls used in US/Commonwealth armies at various times, although these are actually bugle calls, rather than drumbeats. "Get ready" is not a bad translation, though. I'm also not sure that "lily-liverdly" (in verse two of "Unser Rommel") is a good choice - while it does capture the spirit of the verse, it's not a particularly common term in English (at least not these days). Also, it breaks up the flow of the verse. "Cowardly" might be better, as might a different word order - "which were stolen from us quite cowardly" or something of that nature. Other than that, the translations look pretty good to me. Nice work! Carom 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much inclined

to respond to unsigned remarks. Requests? Orders? Which is this anyway? Carptrash 19:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just posted your reply on the election page. Carptrash 19:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, this all seems a little bit like a tempest in a teapot. The question may have been unexpected, but it's neither bad-faith nor entirely irrelevant; this whole situation isn't really worth spending time arguing about, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, we have enough storage to archieve any irrelevant material. Cheers Wandalstouring 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cretan piracy

Hi Wandels. A few days ago you asked about Cretan piracy. I managed to get a hold of P. Brule, La piraterie crétoise hellénistique, and I've scanned some of it for you. I hope this helps. You can download that here semper fictilis 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

To you Wandal, I give the biggest thnks. You work so hard copy editting, find sources and improving the Roman-Spartan War. Thanks to your help the article was featured today. I hope we can work together again maybe on my next project which is Antiochus the Great's War against Rome. Once again thanks. Kyriakos 08:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still reading some stuff to improve it. Wandalstouring 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query on auxilia lower pay

Hi Wandals, I saw a couple of your edits and that you'd noticed I'd turned my attentions to this article. It in a very early stage at the moment so a lot of the information might be questionable. With regards to the auxilia, I think you are asking why they were cheaper than the legionaries. I think the answer is that whilst their basic pay was perhaps as expensive or maybe even more expensive, the legionaries were granted donatives (eg when a new emperor came to power) as well as large pensions and land on retirement - I think it was this long-term cost of each legionary that made them so comparably expensive, not that their standard pay was any more. Also, legionaries were more heavily armed and armoured and their equipment was expensive, especially their armour. I'm not sure if auxilia received their equipment from the ROman state, but certianly the later numeri and foederati would not have done. I think it also seems that whilst legions were raised and kept at a state of full readiness (ie permanently funded) at least some of the non-legionary troops were raised only as required. There is also the mindset that auxilia troops were of lower quality - Luttwak argues that the Romans purposefully maintained "escalation dominance" - ie purposefully never armed their auxiliary troops in the most expensive ways so that the legions could always defeat them should the auxiliaries mutiny. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Military conflict infobox guidelines

Personally, I don't think it's worth changing anything on our end. There are only a handful of wars where the issue comes up (i.e. those where the full list of combatants is too big to fit in the infobox); given that these articles tend to have active very editorial communities in their own right, it seems more sensible to fall back on the "choice of which parameters are appropriate for a particular conflict is left to the discretion of the article editors" bit in the guidelines and let the editors come to some compromise that they will be able to live with. Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War

Hi- Hope my comment at Talk:World War II doesn't come across as harsh- whilst frankly I don't really think there should be a poll at all, I certainly don't think the question should be loaded quite so obviously (although I attribute no bad faith to you whatsoever). If there must be a poll, the first question should in fact be "Do you support the inclusion of "major" combatants in the infobox- yay/nay?". In fact, by my reckoning, a majority of the correspondents so far support the idea of including only links to Axis and Allies, which I also think is the only option that is in line with NPOV policy. Deciding over the inclusion of arbitrary content (who decides who's major, and on what grounds?) by means of a poll (or indeed by any means) is not a good idea, although I appreciate that you only wanted to move the debate forward. Thanks, Badgerpatrol 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not to sure, but as far as I'm aware there's no set precedent or policy regarding the inclusion of so-called "major" combatants in military infoboxes. For the original RfC [5], I count about 4 1/2 to roughly 8 (some votes are ambiguous) against including "major" combatants in the infobox. That's a reasonable majority. I'm not sure what you mean by "the discussion is insane", but if you mean that it's deadlocked with no way forward, then the simple reason for that is because this is a simple matter of opinion. Who is or isn't a major combatant is down to an individual's point of view, depending entirely on what they think are the most important factors. Wikipedia content is not dictated by individual preference, it's dictated by facts- and the fact is, there's no unambiguous way of determining who is, or is not a major combatant. Linking to the Allies and Axis articles (assuming they are properly written using NPOV language) does not transfer the problem- there a full explanation can be given of all the factors involved, and the reader can make up their own minds. The war is such a complex and wide-ranging event that we should be wary of over-simplifying matters. The inclusion of "major" combatants is inherently POV, I'm afraid, and I think you jumped the gun a bit with the construction of your vote- I see no obvious consensus for including "major" combatants at all, and I think it's therefore a bit premature to be already voting on who should go in the infobox. I think per WP:STRAW you should have canvassed opinion a bit more closely before designing your poll in order to make it legitimate (it does rather seem to be rigged in favour of your preferred outcome, with the best will in the world...), and I am not 100% happy with having the "no countries" option labelled "optional". However, I'll leave it alone for now, and I don't ascribe any bad faith to you. All the best, Badgerpatrol 10:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain what you mean by "write the articles you want to link to..."- there already are pretty good articles for Axis and Allies (I might replace a few words here and there, but they substantially reflect the complexities of the situation). I think you might have missed the point a little- if we make a distinction based on "merit", then whose idea of "merit" do we take, and what does "merit" actually mean? "Merit" is an opinion- a normative statement- which is not compatible with Wikipedia's content policies. What you mean by merit, and what I mean by merit, or what Joe Bloggs means by merit, may be entirely separate things. I didn't quite understand your last sentence (Perhaps Peloponnesian War could be seen as a kind of precedence, but its really neath...) but the Peloponnesian War battlebox (minus the "led by...." suffix, which isn't appropriate to WWII) is a pretty good good example to be followed. I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't help but notice this question and this answer, as well as the battlebox guidelines. There is no precedent or binding rule for infoboxes, but there is the overriding need to conform to WP:NPOV. Arbitrarily choosing "major" combatants contravenes that policy, and should be avoided. FYI, whilst again I reiterate that I don't ascribe any bad faith to the way you constructed the poll, you might want to have a look at WP:STRAW for some ideas and guidelines as to how to construct legitimate polls in future. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- of course you are quite correct. I meant Allies and Axis. Sorry if I didn't make this sufficiently clear, I thought I had. You say it's an issue with Anglo-Saxon (by which I think you actually mean American) antipathy towards France. But before that, the issue was "Was China a major power?" or "Was Canada a major power?" or "Should it be Britain + Empire separately, or just "British Empire"? There is no NPOV, unambiguous, consistent way of deciding who was, or was not, a major power. What your poll showed was a) there is no consensus on anything (which we already knew); b) it tells us nothing about a definitive list of "major" combatants even if we were to include one, since it focuses on France, and doesn't even mention China, Canada, the UK, and so on. You seem to be Franco-centric- but using your rationale, we would need to hold a large number of iterative polls, in each case deciding on a particular array of countries. This is obviously likely to lead to unecessary obfuscation and confusion, and fundamentally we should not be voting on POV issues regarding article content. That is just not how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter what other articles have done- if they have arbitrarily decided on their own list of "major combatants" (although I think a case could be made that WWII is unique or nearly unique) then they are wrong and this is right. We are not here to write our own history. Badgerpatrol 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - Sorry

Hey there - I have not been around for awhile - and I noticed that in my message archives that have piled up over time that you asked me to look at the Roman-Spartacan war article. Sorry I wasn't around to do that. I notice that it made FA though - congrats :) - Vedexent (talk) - 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: reorganize project banner

Do you mean breaking the task forces up into topic/nation/period groups? Or something else? Kirill Lokshin 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. Kirill Lokshin 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that you have been re-elected as one of the Military history WikiProject's Assistant Coordinators. Thanks again for offering to take up this responsibility, and congratulations on your success! Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there ever any doubt? You have the ability and the detication. As such it is an honour to have you take the mantle os Assistant Coordinator once again. Felicitation!--Dryzen 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

Assistant Cooridinator of the Military History Wikiproject

Congrats on your re-election as an assistant coordinator. In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. I wish you luck in the coming term. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

offering help

nice of you to offer help. I would gladly support you likewise. the last issue we talked about were the Punic inscriptions... Wandalstouring 13:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it this week Wandalstouring. I hope that would be fine w/ you. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up ® 14:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: modified project banner

Hmm, I'm not sure I like that idea; it'll mean that we'll be hardcoding the current wording across many, many pages, severely limiting our ability to modify it in the future.

Would perhaps using the short descriptions (i.e. <!-- Referencing and citation -->) instead of the full text work?

(We could, incidentally, show the full text in the template itself—and we should probably do so regardless—but I'm not sure that it would help with the particular issue you're seeing.) Kirill Lokshin 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new descriptions won't show up, of course; the instructions for inserting the list only show up when it hasn't been inserted yet. If we do substantially change any of the criteria, we'll have a nightmare trying to update all the old copies—and we will have to update, or people will still assess against the old version.

But, in any case, I suppose that we can worry about that we come to it. In the meantime, I've updated the template as you wanted. Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we get half a screenful of irrelevant instructions on every article. They're intended as a one-time thing, really. Kirill Lokshin 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be workable. It'd be a pain to work with, though.

(I hope that we'll avoid this by the simple expedient of not needing to change the criteria that much, of course.) Kirill Lokshin 00:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of writing the template, it's trivial. From the standpoint of using it, it's rather a pain; people tend to get confused by parameters that don't fit in a nice easy pattern. (We could, of course, go to an entire new set each time we change; but that might be even more confusing, particularly as some of the old ones would carry over.) Kirill Lokshin 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Coordinators

Your RfA

I saw your post on Essjay's talkpage. If you indicate that you withdraw your nomination on the RfA page anyone can close it. I'll do it if no one else does. I suggest crossing out the "I accept" bit and writing "nomination withdrawn" (with a comment if youn like) below it and signing. WjBscribe 11:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth holding off withdrawal, let things run their course. I have a feeling that you'll develop some support from handling the criticisms well, which you're perfectly capable of, and people realising that adminship will be useful in the area.ALR 11:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the RfA following your withdrawal on that page. I hope you won't be too disheartened- I see you do great work as a coordinator on MilHist. And some of the best admins didn't succeed on their first RfA. Best wishes, WjBscribe 12:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

RE:'free edits'

Good idea, but I don't think I'm as well connected as you are. If you can get it going, I'll help, but meanwhile I lack the time to actually do much on WP these days (made only about 10 edits in all of Feb...) -- 我♥中國 03:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any texts on roman military structure?

Hi wandals, I'm working on Structural history of the Roman military‎ at the moment but really struggling to find concrete info on Roman military structure from the later empire (150 AD onwards). I appreciate that it isn't as well documented in the primary sources for a start and that most people's research nowadays is into the republic and early empire but there must be something out there on the later empire. Do you have any texts at all that you think would be helpful that you can either recommend for purchase or else that you would be willing to scan for me to have a look at? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World War II Mediation Case

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/World War II, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Krellis (Talk) 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punic inscriptions

Hi Fayssal

could you perhaps help me a bit with research on Punic inscriptions? I think that someone fluent with a Semitic language and the Maghreb might have it easier. There exist several complete catalogues of Punic inscriptions (there are found more and more texts in recent times). Problem is that the translations seem rather complicated and are often hotly disputed. Many German and English sources do not use the Punic inscriptions for their research, denoting them commonly as formalistic religious blabla. However, they do definetly contain more information. Especially in the Maghreb (Tunisia) and France research is published on the topic (in French). Wandalstouring 14:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wandalstouring. I'll be happy to help you. Could you please guide me to the material in question? -- Szvest - ^Wiki me up ® 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this website is a newly discovered inscription mentioned at the bottom. I couldn't retrieve all its discussed interpretations(important). The above one from Massilia is neither mentioned in my sources, although I have some clue that there was a constant Punic presence with their own temples in this town(less important).

A really interesting piece seems to be catalogized as CIS I 5510.10 I have in Near Eastern Studies, January 1994 an article by Philip C. Schmitz: The Name 'Agrigentum' in a Punic Inscription (CIS I 5510.10). It is really intruguing because it seems to be about a military context and does mention the names and title of Punic commanders that are classified as strategoi by our Greek sources. Thus the official title for a Punic general would be 'rbm' (literally meaning: the great/the great one). I could scan and send you this article as soon as I have a scanner within reach (Monday). The problem is that Schmitz argues for an interpretation and I have not a clue what the current consensus is or whether there is any. Wandalstouring 16:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background. I'll have to do a simple reaserch before presenting my 2¢. I'll get back to you soon. -- Szvest - ^Wiki me up ® 16:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again. OK, 'rbm' is the indicator for a general, while the plenty 'hrb' seem to indicate magistrates. 'bn' means son of, just for orientation.

CIS I 5510,7-11

wţnt 'mtnt z bḥdš [p]'lt št 'šmn'ms bn 'dnb'l hrb wḥn' bn bd'štr[t] bn ḥn' hrb wylk rbm 'dnb'l bn grskn hrb wḥmlkt bn ḥn' hrb 'lš wtmk hmt 'yt 'grgnt wš[']t šlm

"and I installed this gift (at the time of) the new moon of P'lt (in) the year of Esmunaos son of Adonibal the magistrate and Hanno son of Bostar son of Hanno the magistrate and the general Adnibal son of Gisco the general and Himilco son of Hanno the magistrate and the general Adnibal son of Gisco the general and Himilco son of Hanno the general banished 'lš(name of a person); and they seized Agrigentum and pacified it."

'grgnt = "Agrigent" is hotly disputed, however I have found no recent contra since 1974 and 1983, while the last pro is from 1994. Now with more info on the dispute in Ameling Karthago: Staat, Militär und Gesellschaft page 86 Wandalstouring 00:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this inetresting? -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up ® 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, it helps (the book is a little bit expensive - will get in a library). By the way is there any connection between the massive conversion to Judaism in North Africa and the Punics? Was just wondering because St. Augustinus mentioned that these Canaanites spoke a language quite similar to Hebrew with whom they shared quite a lot of culture, expect the number of gods and some other habits. Isaac, the mahout of Charlemagne's elephant, gave me the idea. Just in case you have an idea on this topic, would be nice to add some info after the Third Punic War. Wandalstouring 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found a very interesting material at the Phoenician encyclopedia:

• Ethnic Origin, Language and Literature of the Phoenicians
• Phoenician script was the original one used for transliterating Holy Bible
• A controversial hypothesis and the Phoenician connection based on the Y-Chromosome
• The Controversy: Who invented the alphabet, the Phoenicians or the Greeks?
• Phoenician Inscriptions Around the World
• History of the Phoenician Canaanites
• Were Parts of the Old Testament (the Torah) Plagiarized from Ugaritic Literature?
• Phoenicia Related Links.

I will try to read all these links before summarizing my findings. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up ® 15:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More (books)

• Conversion to Judaism
• Jewish roots in Africa
• The Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Jewish Communities of Morocco
• Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts
• A Psychoanalytic History of the Jews
• Hebrewisms of West Africa
• Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up ® 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've just received the following:

I am Philip C. Schmitz. My article "The Name 'Agrigentum' in a Punic Inscription from Carthage (CIS I 5510)" was discussed on this site. I am a specialist in Punic epigraphy. If you have questions about the subject, direct them to me at [e-mail]. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up ® 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe

I put the tag there since 2 of the 7 battles listed were with Turks. As such, it is within the realm of WP:TURKEY. Also, I do not see much historiography in the article at the moment, but history. Perhaps this is to be developed, but there is no analysis of how the history was written, the style and interpretation of different historians. BTW, even when the historiography aspect of the article is developed, study of history written by the Europeans vs. the Turks on these events would be of major interest and relevance. As a result, I see no reason why the tag should be removed. I think the current tags of Project Greece (which I notice is uncontested since March 11) and Project Turkey are appropriate. Regards, --Free smyrnan 11:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for Song Dynasty

Hello, I've recently put a lot of work into the Song Dynasty article, and I was wondering if you had the time to give a little peer review, providing suggestions, advice, opinions, etc. I'm shooting for featured article status, and it is very close in my opinion to reaching it.

Wikipedia:Peer review/Song Dynasty/archive1

Thanks, --PericlesofAthens 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Candidate

Hi, thanks for leaving a message. Forget the peer review, if you have time, write here instead.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Song Dynasty

It's been peer reviewed enough already. There are already some who have voiced support or objection towards it being a candidate, but user:Cliff smith and I have fixed the problems people had that made them object in the first place. Lol. If you find anything wrong with the article, please object and oppose the article for candidacy (explaining why), so that I or another may fix it to meet FA status. Otherwise, I'd love to get more support! ;)

--PericlesofAthens 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi

Thanks for the links, Wandalstouring. I was well aware beforehand of the ancient Greek tradition of Buddhism, which unfortunately did not stick very long. Lol. --PericlesofAthens 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ATHENS

Hi! I was away all day today, and I did not see your message; as a matter of fact, I had no time for Wikipedia today!

To the point: You are already assistant co-ordinator in MILHIST I think; can you also start and keep this task force as well? If yes, it seems a good idea. I cannot guarantee about the level of my assistance, because: 1) my wikitime unfortunately is getting now dangerously limited (something I regret!), 2) I also work a lot on Wikiproject:Greece which absorbs a lot of my wikitime, 3) I also review articles in WP:BIOGRAPH, 4) I have two papers for the School of Public Administration to write! Oh! And I also work now on an article on modern Greek history (Battle of Greece).

In any case, I'll be there with ideas and proposals, and, maybe with adding information in some articles, adding the task in MILHIST banners. I cannot guarantee for something more at least for the time being. But who knows ... Maybe some article attracts my attention and give up everything for it.

Happy I had the time to talk with you. And even late, congratulations for your success in the elections of the WP:MILHIST. Cheers!--Yannismarou 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Holocaust & Genocide

I was hoping that wikipedia may be able to make a section for Holocaust & Genocide as either a project or portal. I thought that it might be part of the Military project of the History section. Looking for assistance with this. Thanks. I would appreciate comments & assistance to be left on my talk page [[6]]. I hope to hear from you soon. Eric Rodrigues.

Re:Athens, history of a major power in ancient Greece

Hey Wandal. I before I do anything I would just like to make sure about what I know about WikiReaders is right. Isn't a compelation of articles on a certain topic? I am intrested in the topic of Athens so what would it involve? Would you please clarify these details and I wll give you my answer. Thanks. Kyriakos 10:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am all for it. Just tell me what you would like me to do? Kyriakos 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a think about it and I thought of some relevant chapters. I think we should begin in 511 BC and end at 336 BC. Here are my suggestions:

• Establishment of Democracy.
• Perisan Wars beginning with Battle of Marathon
• Delian League
• Peloponnesian War
• Corinthian War
• And then the establishment of the Second Delian League
• And then the wars with Macedon

What do you think? Kyriakos 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I am going to start finding article and piece them together. Also I each chapter, we should include a few biography, like for example in the Delian League chapter, Pericles, Cimon in the Persians Wars, Themistocles, Militiades etc, etc. What do you think? Kyriakos 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCast: Over the wire..

Thank you very much for your offer of assistance in regard to the planned WikiCast series.

Based on extant information in Wikipedia, would you be willing to start working on a script in respect of one of the 'escapes' mentioned on the list at [[cast:Over the Wire]]/ ([7])?

Even some basic information or resource links would be useful in lieu of a full script, particularly in relation to some of the more obscure items mentioned.

If you have other ideas on what Historical subject's WikiCast could cover, noting it's predominantly Wikipedian/Wikimedian audience feel free to suggest them.

ShakespeareFan00 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your podcasts should look like. I could work on some of the Swiss Guards stuff because they are easy to research. However, give me a clue what to do. Wandalstouring 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats needed is a basic script, So I would suggest concentrating on the Vatican & Swiss Guard's role in assisting 'escapees' during WWII. Alongisde the Swiss Guard the 'missions' undertaken by H.J.O'Flaherty would be of importance in this. Depending on the amount of material there might be more than one programme.

Do NOT worry about not knowing what to do, Over the wire is still very much in the planning stages, and the people invovled in WikiCast are still learning as well.

In terms of podcast/broadcast format, the aim is for programmes to appear (or at least attempt to) be like those you would hear on broadcasters like the BBC or NPR. In other words well researched documentary presentations, running to about 20-30 mins in length. This means that what I or someone making the audio needs is a well researched script to read from. This script could draw material from any number of Wikipedia articles, primary sources or (subject to licensing) other historians.

Does this help? If you have more questions, please keep asking :-) ShakespeareFan00 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want a short publication in audio. Well, if you don't stick to escapes it would be far easier and we could run the task within our publication departement, including all support by knowledgable reviewers and good copyeditors. Wandalstouring 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping the project making it's own programmes :)

I am focusing on 'Over the Wire' because it was an idea I felt would be of interest to listners, and WikiCast had to start with something that would catch listners, Escape tales being ripping yarns stuff in places would be one way to do this.

In terms of covering a wider scope in respect of millitary history and history generally, I am more than willing to give them consideration. What did you have in mind? ShakespeareFan00 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some battles of the Greco-Persian Wars would have plenty and good material and provide interesting topics. Wandalstouring 16:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasts

I'm in contact with a podcaster who wants to produce an 'Over the Wire' series, but seems now open minded to podcast other content. It seems like a good way to publicate to me and it might be far easier for us than a wikireader. I pointed out that I'm not willing to create any such thing outside wikipedia (legal issues). Do you know some potential topics and who would be interested in creating such casts? Wandalstouring 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i am thinking of a few topics but i really don't think i can participate as i am a bit busy plus that i have no prior experience on podcasting.

Here are some of the topics:

• Ratlines (history)
• Stalag Luft III
• Michael Sinclair (British Army officer)
• Catalpa rescue -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up ® 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back in... You say you don't want to do stuff outside of WP? GFDL is fine for WikiCast :-) ShakespeareFan00 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast

Why don't you try a podcast on the Battle of Thermopylae. It is likely to have lots of attention and the article looks acceptable. Wandalstouring 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do when I have some time, I assume you meant it will have publicity given 300 (film),

BTW The links someone else gave in connection with Over the Wire proved useful as well.

ShakespeareFan00 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:upcoming translations

No problem! Let me know when you need help. Carom 19:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thermopylae

OK, Looked at the article- seems reasonable for a podcast.I would however say that a section about the Persian preperations and disposition prior to the battle is desirable though, I know that there are probably not going to be that many sources on this, but feel it's a valid area that needs looking at to give a balanced viewpoint?

ShakespeareFan00 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast

Why don't you try a podcast on the Battle of Thermopylae. It is likely to have lots of attention and the article looks acceptable. Wandalstouring 14:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask some knowledgable editors for help. Wandalstouring 07:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is listed at WP:MHPUB as part of our project's publications. Could you create a 'wikiproject podcasts' or another page in wikipedia? (see our discussion, legal issues as I pointed out.) Wandalstouring 10:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that would be needed in respect of WikiCast is the eventual OGG file link from commons, under GFDL. Other than that I see no reason why the project could not be developed here indepdently.

Provided the eventual podcast is GFDL, all WikiCAst would need is the file. :) ShakespeareFan00 12:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my last edits to the WP:MHPUB page ShakespeareFan00 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the seeming objection to an external project re-using content, provided stuff stays as

GFDL there is no issue? ShakespeareFan00 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you simpy create a wikiproject with some subpages? Then it would be obvious and be structured. Wandalstouring 18:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Point taken. My aim in respect of the podcast for Battle of Thermopylae

was try and get a programme for 'free' content broadcasters made. It is planned to do this in a GFDL compatible manner, If there was a misunderstanding, my apologies.

I also fail to see, how a podcast made on Wikipedia cannot be used on something like WikiCast

provided the GFDL license is maintained. If there are other objections unrelated to GFDL please LMK. ShakespeareFan00 22:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planned podcast based on the article once certain issues concerning the article and content issues are resolved.

Take a look at Battle of Artemisium. If I understand it correctly, a possible interpretation for the battle of Thermopylae is that a small unit(the bigger an army the slower it moves)surprisingly held off the large Persian army, while the fleets fought. The idea was to defeat the Persian warships and thus force them to reduce their army because they would no longer be able to supply it sufficiently by sea. Wandalstouring 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted.. ShakespeareFan00 17:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Roman Steel

The fact that the ancient greeks and romans knew to make steel (at least from the 4th century BCE) I found on the book:

Greek and Roman Technology: A sourcebook John W. Humphrey, John P. Oleson and Andrew N. Sherwood --RafaelG 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carthage

The dispute over this section followed from an edit-warring saga involving someione who called himself Marduk of Babylon - and subsequent sockpuppet Kara Umi. He then seemed to disappear. Frankly, I'm not aware of there being really much doubt about the child sacrifice, though there was a brief flurry of denial that seems to have been motivated partly by nationalism and partly be post-colonial theory. There is already a separate article called Religion in Carthage in which it is also discussed. Are you proposing a third article? Paul B 10:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Out

As I recall there was some work done on burn out under Esperanza, although I don't know if any pages were retained after that project imploded.

Otherwise I'm happy enough to offer something, what did you have in mind? That said, I'm not sure how much I can commit, things are extremely busy at work just-now as I'm in the middle of leaving one job to go elsewhere.

ALR 13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going anywhere with this thought? I've not noticed anything else on the subject yet?

Cheers

ALR 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marocchinate

I tried to give you an answer, but I have to document a bit myself :-) Here you find the answer [8] --piero tasso 21:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikICast: Podcast...

Podcast can go ahead, but owing to ambiguities with regards to net radio in the US it probably won't now be eventually be on a stream.

ShakespeareFan00 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what the problem with streams is in the USA and give us or me a publishable file. We do have some connections(Vitamin B in German), so we can possibly air it somehow. Wandalstouring 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in relation to streams is to do with what counts as royalty-free in respect net-radio.

As this was always intended to be a downloadable item produced under GFDL, from WP, There is no issue in respect of it's creation. In fact the situation now is closer to what your originally recomended, a downloadable file prodcued by your Wikiproject.

The reason I was asking about the Persian side of things was for balance, Once the article

is balanced work can start on developing a script that someone could read.. possibly inserting quotes from the relevant primary sources by a second reader. ShakespeareFan00

Shark kid

Thank you for deciding to stay by me. I thank you very much!

Question

Hi Wandalstouring,

I am going to start to make an article for Great Britain in the American Civil War, because I saw it was under requested articles for The American Civil War taskforce.

Can you please clarify something for me? Do I have to write a list of people from British people who were in the war or do I have to write about what Britain did or did not do in the war.

Thanks!

Psdubow 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Reply: Question

Oh, Thanks. But, I already wrote the article (Great Britain in the American Civil War) But, I could change it, if it does not meet the intended standards. Do you think it seems okay?

Thanks!

Psdubow 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'll try to submit it to review.

Thanks a lot for all your help and input! :)

Psdubow 20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 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 15:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

publications

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#How to handle publications is a short suggestion how we can handle publications on a step by step bases and fund the whole thing. Please drop by.

I'm quite busy this semester since I do 1.5 to twice as many courses as a student should do. Punic Wars will wait (it is quite difficult to track down some statements like their unwarlikeness that gets frequently reported in someone's histories of Carthage, but that is said to be contradicted in every report on excavations of Punic settlements in the Mediterranean. Wandalstouring 17:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wandalstouring. Thanks for the notice. I wish you good luck w/ your studies. I think i'll contact the guys [professor?] who contacted us a couple of weeks ago. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 18:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schmitz? We had an email exchange. Wandalstouring 10:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasr

how does your podcast do?

We discussed the possibility of creating presentations (powerpoint with sound and images) on the basis of podcasts and use them all directly for fundraising(not to sell, but to give them an optional donation button or something similar). So we are a little bit curious what your suggested script looks like. Wandalstouring 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postponed or abandoned owing to other commitments and inability to access facilities in the coming months.. Sorry ShakespeareFan00 15:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: contact

I don't mind moving forwards on this. What did you have in mind for organizing this?

I would suggest mirroring the awards setup; have a single page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Contacts) that would be used as a (transcluded?) list, and then use its talk page for the associated behind-the-scenes work.

(It could be done in a more complex fashion by trying to tag along with the task forces, I suppose; but I don't really see that as needed, given that we're not going to be dealing with that many people.) Kirill Lokshin 15:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I think you've vastly overestimated the editor base here. We have hundreds of members—on paper; in reality, I would guess that no more than a hundred or two edit military history articles with any regularity, and, of those, no more than twenty or thirty that could be suitable as contacts.

(I'm assuming, of course, that the contacts will need to (a) be consistenly active and available to answer questions, (b) know the material well enough to do so, and (c) be sufficiently personable that people approaching them won't cause conflicts. This rather limits the numbers; the average once-a-week editor isn't really someone whose name should be listed as the person to go to, I think.) Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contact

Contact is a new service and honor the milhist project has introduced. I want to suggest you as a possible contact. Could you please name some subjects you are quite familiar with and willing to help(answer questions, reviews) within our scope. Wandalstouring 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest two additional candidates- Grant65 and Nick Dowling are also very knowledgeable and helpful on military history subjects. Cla68 13:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Indian War

I haven't read much about USSR involvement in the war, particularly after the USA got involved (and I doubt both were ready to fight on the same side just after the Cuban Missile Crisis). However, if there is information, then can you please inform me. Traing 07:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your cooperation. Traing 09:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

Hmm, I might consider. I have some good military related literature in my growing collection of books:

• Needham's (1986) Science and Civilization in China: Volume 5 Chemistry and Chemical Technology: Part 7 Military Technology; the Gunpowder Epic
• Wawro's (2003) The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871
• Howard's (2001) The Franco-Prussian War
• Bucholz's (2001) Moltke and the German Wars
• Best's (1998) War and Society in Revolutionary Europe 1770-1870
• Bond's (1998) War and Society in Europe 1870-1970
• Itzkowitz's (1972) Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition (not strictly a military book, but with plenty of good martial info)
• Howard's (2002) The First World War
• Wright's (1997) The Ordeal of Total War 1939-1945

All of this stuff could allow me to fact check (and hence provide better peer review for) articles on European warfare from the Industrial Revolution onwards, as well as some China-related articles dealing with the Middle Ages, and of course the Ottoman Empire. However, I am not one to be self-labeled as a "bureaucrat" who makes or breaks other people's articles. I joined wikipedia.org with the intent to improve the quality of articles by making my own editing contributions. I will consider your offer, though.

--PericlesofAthens 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Wandalstouring, I accept the offer. You can put me down on the contact page as someone knowledgeable in Chinese gunpowder warfare, as well as the Franco-Prussian War, and more generally-speaking, 19th century European warfare. I've got the sources to help me out there.--PericlesofAthens 15:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Please drop by

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Contacts needs some attendance. Wandalstouring 17:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I think in a dispute that you were involved, I promised to make a statement within a few days. However, I can't find out what it was about (had a bit rl stress). Wandalstouring 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've voted. Well, that was an edit warring and a dispute at an article. I tried to mediate and it is quiet now. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Wars of Africa

Hi Wandalstouring. Could you please have a look at the link and see if you can help? Some articles are needing more references in order to get released. You can leave your comments at the page as well. Thanks in advance. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rif War

Hm...I don't have any book sources handy that I could use to verify any info. Google scholar is not of much help, so I could check my school's online library and see if they have anything. In any case I could provide some input, I suppose. However, I don't have time to read it now. I have to drive one of my friends home from the shop after he takes his car in, I have to sit down and study Chinese characters before I go to my three hour class tonight, and then right after that I am going out to the bar to party my *** off because my marine friend Joe just got back from Iraq! In other words, time to party. Tomorrow at 1:00, I have band practice with my band for several hours (I play guitar). After that, hopefully I'll be free to actually sit down and concentrate on this article.--PericlesofAthens 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wandalstouring. For the transition of traditional warfare to modern in this article, I honestly don't know what I should contribute. The article specifically states that this was the first war to employ airplanes that dropped mustard gas, yet does this need to be expanded upon? If someone wanted to know the history of mustard gas (used first by imperial Germany in WWI), they could click on the article for it. What specifically did you have in mind that I should contribute? Honestly, the books that I own don't even mention the war, at all.--PericlesofAthens 02:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Terrorism by U.S.

Hey, there. I'm an old Classics scholar, too, but now i live in Asia, speakuh Chineeszzz most days.  ;-)

I just wanted to let you know that a brief vote on the "State Terrorism by the United States" page would be welcome. Just a "Keep" is all that's needed -- the nationalists on the page are taking an up-or-down vote on whether to rename it.

Stone put to sky (living the Taiwan summer....) Stone put to sky 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiReader

hey Wandal, I have finally started to create the WikiReader on Athens. I will try and complete some more tomorrow. PLease have a look and tell me what you think: I have put a link here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Publication/Athens. Thanks. Kyriakos 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 16:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Flu

Hi Wandalstouring. Sorry that I haven't gotten to the Malakand article quick enough, I've had the flu for the past two days, and I've been throwing up today, so I haven't been in the most merry mood to be editing and fact checking on wikipedia. Hope you understand. Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 22:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again

Hey, I'm still sick, but I'm here for the moment. Are you sure that the Malakand article needs any more attention? It's listed as GA now, and after reading it, it sounds pretty good.--PericlesofAthens 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]