₪

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

See User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 1 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 2 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 3 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 4 or User talk:Wandalstouring/Archive 5 User talk:Wandalstouring/archive 6 or User talk:Wandalstouring/archive 7 for older edits

Some useful links:

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

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

Private link

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

hi, wht about maps ? did u tried inkscape ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 06:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw this article on the GAN list with no reviewer listed, so I started the review page...then I noticed your comment on the talk page. Are you reviewing the article? If so, please let me know, and maybe add a note at GAN. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to help, if you like. How should we divide it, by section or by criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the dab links and the one remaining instance of "we", I'd say my concerns are pretty much dealt with. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above message, I've removed that last 'we'. Incidentally, one of the remaining dab links is deliberate, so I'm not removing it; I'll try and remove the other one, although I was having trouble finding were it is.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding how quickly I can finish making the required edits; not this week. I am really, really busy in the real world until the 23rd November. I will try and make edits to the article during the period until then, to show that I am committed to getting it up to standard, but I won't be able to actually finish it. After the 23rd, I will try to finish it as soon as possible. I hope that this is OK! Thanks again, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the arms & armour bit now. I think this means that there are only two points left to address, which I will try and get finished ASAP. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've finished now. I've added the Sparabara, the Greek light infantry and a citation of the Battle of Mycale. I've also addressed the other issues, about the minor authors and about Demaratus's message. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that missile troops were important in Greek warfare before the Greco-Persian Wars. As far as I'm aware, the Hoplites were absolutely dominant in battle between the city-states previous to that period. Obviously, by the time of the Peloponnesian War skirmishers were very important, but before the Greco-Persian Wars...? For instance, there is no mention of lightly armed troops at the battle of Marathon. I am happy to be proved wrong though; do you have any references which state the importance of skirmishers in Greek armies before the GPW? If not, then I don't think we should particularly emphasise the role of skirmishers in the Warfare paragraph.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the short intro paragraph; I'll try and find a citation for it tomorrow. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finalising the review. It took me a long time to get there, so thanks for your patience! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the issues that you raised on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 - please leave some feedback when you've got a moment! -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inner German border has recently undergone some major restructuring to improve the article and reduce its size. If you have any comments on the revised version of the article, please post them at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1#Article size update. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles of macrohistorical importance involving invasions of Europe (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this message, I made two edits to the template so that Arrow (missile) would have no alt problems at FAC: the first had an edit summary in which I tried to explain the purpose of the blank alts and links, and the second had pretty much none but was meant to continue the first.

Purely decorative images should have specified blank alt text and a specified blank link, or they get read by readers who can't see the image and waste their time (and wasting a reader's time is never good). I made the edits precisely because the icons were decorative (as Thumperward noted when undoing your revert), not despite of it. I hope I've clarified the intent there. --an odd name 17:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wandalstouring.

I noticed that, on 15 November, you signed up to review the article I nominated for GA status, Philip the Arab and Christianity. Based on your recent contributions, you seem to be occupied with other matters at the moment, like the GA nomination for the Greco-Persian Wars and the recent FAC for Castle. I do not mind the delay, but could you give me an ETA on your expected review of Philip, so that I can schedule my wiki-checkups accordingly?

Regards, Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no viable way to access those sources. The English-language work is obscenely expensive. I have no local library. And, as I mentioned before, I can neither read nor speak German. If you could extract the meaningful information from these works, I would be much obliged. (Your continued use of the word "scientific" strikes me as very odd. I don't believe the word means the same thing to you as it does to me. Could you define the term for me, and describe what works you would call "scientific" or "unscientific"?) I am still working on the article, and would not like you to fail it.

P.S.: Actually, Wandal, I have a blister on my right index finger. It pains me to use it, and I've not yet found a way to type without it. Could we delay the process until it heals? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I give a description of each and every one of my edits. "re" is a reply, "e" is a content edit. Every time I make a significant edit to a page I am unfamiliar with, I give a lengthier description, like "delinking" or "fmt." Every time I make a controversial edit, or an edit which is in direct response to a previous edit, I also give a description, like "we prefer to have portraits aligned so that their subjects are staring into the page, rather than out of it". I see no need to provide lengthy descriptions to pages on which I am the only editor. It is a waste of my time. If you want to check progress, see my replies beneath your comments on the GA page. This is standard process. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make progress on the article if you do not follow up on my GA comments. Your comments are not uncomplex, and cannot be followed with a simple "done". They require discussion. Your unwillingness to participate in discussion is unfortunate, and your inclination to fail the article does not reflect either the status of the article or my participation in the review process. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandal, you noted on Christophore and Chimakwa's talk pages that you could possibly send the two sources you listed on my talk page as PDFs. Could I get a copy of those PDFs if that is at all possible? I would very much appreciate it. Also: Christophore has not edited Wikipedia since 14 May 2008; Chimakawa has not edited Wikipedia since 10 December 2008. I appreciate the fact that you have made additional efforts to improve the article outside of the review process, but since these two are not active contributors, it does not seem like they can help. It might be better to leave a notice on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects, like Wikiproject Religion, Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome, or Wikiproject Christianity. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the English-language material. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not know what you are looking for. Nor do I understand what I would have to do to move the article to the point where you would feel willing to send me the PDF. If you could clarify these matters for me, I would be much obliged. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandal, I would like you to fail the article. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. I will wait. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think everything I brought up is fixed now. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk)

Could I ask why you deleted the material on representations of Cicero in popular culture? You don't seem to be a regular contributor either to that article, or to other articles on subjects pertaining to the Roman Republic, so I was wondering what principle you were operating on. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Harris's books (a series) are worth a sentence or two. They are substantial in terms of their historical research; I believe he's pals with Mary Beard, a rock star of the classics world, and Harris's political perceptions are taken seriously enough that when the first book in the projected trilogy came out, the New York Times gave him a coveted op-ed space to talk about parallels between, of all things, the Lex Gabinia of 67 BC and Bush's war on terror (view it here). The late Roman Republic is my main area of interest (as evidenced here), and I didn't think the section was frivolous. Underdeveloped and inadequately framed, yes. But you have to start somewhere. For instance, a properly done section on cinematic portrayals, using published reviews, can tell us a great deal about what we think of Cicero today: a British friend of mine remarked that in Rome Cicero came off like a vicar. Which may be fair, come to think of it. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the message you left me: "show me a FA of a historical person with an in popular culture section who was not an artist." I sense we are communicating across an unbridgeable abyss, so let's just leave it. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bibliography link

Hi Wandalstouring! I noticed on your user page that you speak French (even if at an intermediate level), and I was wondering if you would be able to help me with something? I currently have the article Cleveland Bay up for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cleveland Bay/archive1. There is a question on one image, originally uploaded to the French WP by a French-speaking editor and then transferred to Commons. The image does not definitively list the uploader as the author, or give a source (which should be "self" if the uploader is the author) and so may not be usable in a FA. Would you be able to drop a note to the French user about whether this image is their work? I don't speak French, which is a definite drawback in this scenario. Thanks in advance for your help :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, and the fast response. Not exactly the result I was hoping for, but at least I had more information thanks to you. Dana boomer (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like leaving articles in such an untidy state. But since you put forward the hypothesis, I guess we could leave it that way for a week or two to see if anyone actually makes the effort to restore the deleted material with sources. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation at the moment, but I'd be glad to take a look if no one else has reviewed by the time I return on Monday. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noted you are reviewing the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals. Do you know when you will expect to be done with the review? Regards. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Are you able to review this article? {Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate your time to review the article. {Cmguy777 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

User:Wandalstouring has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Wandalstouring's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Wandalstouring! Peace, Rlevse 00:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]