User talk:MinisterForBadTimes/archive 1

Hello, MinisterForBadTimes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catehdral template

I'm not at all convinced we need another template for this purpose - there are plenty of generic church templates, and articles certainly only need a single infobox. David Underdown (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of an improvement, though I was going tosay the same as Amanda below about the location inforamtion. Other points about previous buildings are hardly unique to teh UK, nor to Cathedral. Aesthetically, I find the green you've used rather strong (and I suspect taht some people will struggle with black on a darkish green). I'm somewhat ambivalent about infoboxes in general, they can encourage a bit of a Top Trumps approach to the subject, is it a the biggest oldest, have the most medals etc. David Underdown (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on the cathedral template

Please don't expand it as you did at Chester. Information as to the number of previous buildings on the site really doesn't need to be in the info box. When you come up with a section heading like "Date of commencement of this building" (or whatever it said) and it extends for two lines in order to put in just one date, then you can be fairly sure that what you are doing is not a good move. The heading "Dates" might be OK. And then, please get them correct. The dates you put in contradicted those in the article.

One problem with boxes is that apart from the little map showing where the city is located in the county (and anyone who actually wants to go there wont use that anyway) almost every other particle of info is in the article. The box then takes up a lot of room to repeat stuff, and often, when people insert extra stuff, pushes down a picture, and all the text that goes with it.

You simply cannot fiddle with info boxes and walk away without some person having to rejig the content that has been displaced. In this case, if you are using a squarish monitor, you may not have even noticed that you had caused a layout problem. The person who did the layout on this article (me actually) always checks to make sure its going to work on both wide and narrow screens. Adding info boxes, or making them larger nearly always stuffs up the layout. Pleeease don't extend them. Amandajm (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken another look at this template. Some of it is nonsense. You can't put an end date on the buildings, since work is ongoing. In the case of Canterbury, one of it's western towers is 19th century. In the case of St Alban's, a great many significant changes were made in the 19th century. Please just delete this part entirely.

There is really little point in putting location by town, county and country on three individual lines. It merely makes the box bigger for no really useful purpose. The smaller that the box can be, the more effectively it will serve the article. A big box of repeated info simply means that all the room for pictures is used up, in the first two or three paragraphs. If you can find a way of making something like a list of architects flow like text and occupy the whole width of the box, rather than lining up under each other, as they do at Chester, then that would be very helpful, because it would shorten the length of the box. Amandajm (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Can I suggest that the number of cathedrals on the site can be very confusing as in many case one cathedral did not simply replace the other because the rebuilding happened in a number of stages. It isn't a very useful fact. The fact with which you could replace it is "Date of original church". In many cases it wasn't a cathedral. A number of the cathedrals were abbeys long before they became cathedrals.

With regards to consecration, with modern church buildings, consecration generally happens fairly soon after completion. In the case of an English cathedral, the building may have been consecrated hundreds of years before its completion.

Sooner or later I'll get around to all the medieval cathedrals, plus St Paul's. Amandajm (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is the amount of space that the box takes. St Pauls is a good example which you can see for yourself, unless you are working on a monitor of almost square proportions. The info box displaces whatever picture is beneath it. Because the pic is linked to the text that it illustrates, the text then gets displaced. On my monitor, in the case of the St Pauls article, there is now a gap of fully 2 inches in the middle of the text about "Old St Pauls". This is the direct result of the size of the info box.

One of the things that takes up room is the separate headings. A heading is needed for "Specifications". The other three headings, "Basic information", "Ecclesiastical information" and "Current building information" are all unnecessary as they can be summed up as "Information" and really need no heading whatsoever, because this is an "information" box. One is forced to ask - Why "Basic"? Isn't it all "Ecclesiastical"? and "Does current building information refer to some "current" building program? It doesn't. Please scrap these headings, leaving only the heading "specifications".

Second thoughts. I have just looked at the history of the article on St Pauls. I have just compared the before and after state of this article. I really don't think that having a summary of so much architectural detail and history is useful in the leading box. If a person really wants the history, then they need to read the history. Saying that the present St Pauls is the 4th on the site is a relativiely useless piece of information, unless the person actually wants an in-depth history.

I would prefer, on pages like Chester, to move all the list of architects and the specifications out of that leading box.

perhaps you could create a box specifically with the type of architectural details that you have included. The box could be positioned at the end of the article, adjacent to the references or bibliography. Both these headings tend to leave unfilled space to the right side of the page, and are therefore a good place to put a box.

Scrap the heading "Current building information" because it is confusing and non-helpful.

I recommend-

Dates- First church, Building dates (1066-1492 or whatever), Restoration (1848-78 or whatever) There is no point in giving encompassing dates two separate lines. It wastes useful space.

Architect/s- with the words (restoration) after the names of restoration architects except where they also contributed in a major way to the structure, as at Bristol.

Specifications-

Amandajm (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job for the images on the phalanx article! :) KostasG (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral info boxes

I have been busy, and haven't bothered to go around them all and check. Just getting around to it now. The effect of your info boxes is disastrous to the layout of most of the articles you have shoved them into. I notice that a few that are better monitored have had their problems fixed. But I suggest that you go to the Salisbury Cathedral page, before I fix it, and actually LOOK at what happens when you shove the box in, where there is already a picture. I have a very wide monitor which makes the problem worse, so I greatly narrowed it, and even at the squarest possible screen size, the text still has a great gap caused by the positioning of the text box above a picture.

PLEEEEASE use the show "Show Preview" option before you save.

Secondly, many of the boxes have a surfeit of information. Amandajm (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Marathon

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article [[{{{article}}}]] you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and a heads-up

MinisterForBadTimes, I post this note specifically on your talk page because (by reference to your lengthy list of contributions concerning ancient Greece) you seem to be knowledgeable on the topic concerned. Ancient_Greece needs some good scholarly work on the social structure section, which concerns itself almost entirely with slaves. I've written a note on the talk page - I discovered the narrow focus while researching the social status of iatros/physicians in ancient Greece, and realized there was very little info regarding *any* profession. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Glacialfury (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greco Persian Wars

I've been watching your edits for a two days and I'm rather annoyed by your violation of policy. You can do minor edits without edit summaries, but everything else requires such a summary and I kindly ask yout to do so. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Battle of Platea, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

started GA review

Here is the start of my GA review for your article. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked through Lazenby The Defence of Greece today. He critizes the number of Helots as probably too high while he confirms the other number of light armed troops as one servant per hoplite plus 800 Athenian archers. He thinks that also every Spartan had one servant and the other Helots were transporting food and possibly stayed at home. The light armed were of limited military value according to his perception.(page 227-228) I hope that helps you to provide additional sources and better balance the article. On page 228 he also calculates based on Roman camps that the Persian camp did contain 60-70,000 men, including 10,000 cavalry, but pointing out that Connolly in Greece and Rome at War page 29 calculates 120,000 soldiers for the same camp size. However, that should help you refine the argument for the Persian host. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will only give GA when there's a discussion of sources in the article. That's the standard for classical battles. Furthermore I advice you to obtain a map of the battle. You can ask for help here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 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) 04:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Artemisium

Hi,

I'm GA reviewing your stuff again. There are two things that make me wonder. What happened to the Greek fleet that tried to trap the Persians and why do you mention Lazenby in the bibliography if you didn't use him? He's better off as further reading.

Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User talk:Mohammad adil will hopefully work on a map of the battle. If you can give him any helpful information you're welcome. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read Lazenby today and started the formal review.

You can visit it here. I still advice you to read Lazenby at least. He's a pretty respected source and I really don't know why almost every article on ancient Greek matters gets sourced exclusively with Holland. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will take me half an hour and I can turn the whole book into pdf and send it to you. This might also help other editors working on the subject because they rather seem to lack Lazenby. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have Lazenby as pdf now. Give me an email and I can send it. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the edit summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Battle of Plataea. Your recent series of three edits were substantial and with no explanation. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Return of Ariobarza?

Hi there, I wanted to comment on User:Dougweller page, but when scrolling down, I saw your message, and frankly I'm really offended by it. I'm afraid that because your message was a long one on Dougwellers page, I will have to make a long reply here, since you accuse me of so many things. I think you too might be fascinated by Ariobarza (because you have stalked me and probably stalked Ariobarza), and since you know so much about he/or she (I'm confused about the sex of that individual too). I don't how a few edits could mean that I am this user, we might share the same interests and editing techniques, but I suspect that you probably hated that user, and now when you see that I am about to begin to edit her similar articles, you would not want to live that nightmare again. My first four edits of fixing the titles was legitimate, since I have been visiting Wikipedia for two months now, I felt the urge to correct some mistakes there in the military histories of Greece and Persia mostly (you need to check my interests fully on my userpage before making up more theories). And it is then that I decided to create a user account. If Ariobarza's account and IP is banned, how could she be me? In my first edits, before joining Wikipedia, and even when I don't sign in, my IP address is different from hers, which would mean in a different location. Are you suggesting Ariobarza got a new computer and moved to a different place?

Re: The evidence: 1. Amerena's strange fascination with Ariobarza and Ariobarza's orphaned articles - why, when it is clear that they were universally disapproved of (and based on OR), would anyone try and re-instate them as articles? Unless that person was Ariobarza? Re: My strange fascination with that user is also shared with User:Wayiran/ariobarza and another unspecified user who wants to rescue, but totally change Ariobarza's articles (not even half of them) to acceptable articles, your quote "universally disapproved of (and based on OR)" was something I said on the talk page of this article User:Amerana/TigrisKapisa, which you failed to fully read/ understand, and which gives answers to your conspiracy theories (I suggest you read to see what I will do to her articles, which A. is not fully hers, and B. I might even make total rewrites and change the titles)!

2. Second, and this for me is the clincher, Amerana has transferred Ariobarza's stub user page articles to his/her own user page. Ariobarza's user page was deleted on the 23rd January. Amerana joined on the 15th February (as he/she is keen to stress in their messages). Although Ariobarza's talk page still exists, and lists three of the user-page articles (User talk:Ariobarza#One Final Clarification..., it does not list "Battle of the Tigris" User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris. Yet Battle of the Tigris is one of the rescued articles on Amerana's user space User:Amerana/TigrisKapisa. There is almost no way of finding User:Ariobarza/Battle of the Tigris unless you already know the page exists - i.e. you are Ariobarza. Re: Here is where your "clincher" falls apart, I was checking Cyrus' battle articles when I first came upon the enthusiastic Ariobarza, I typed "User:Ariobarza" in Wikipedia's search box, and guess what, the search box showed me all here userspace articles too! And later when checking Wikipedian's interested in Iran users, I came upon user Wayiran, and later found when searching for Battle of Pasargadae, that Wayiran had did what I later did in his userspace. So you don't have to be Ariobarza to find Ariobarza's articles.

3. The style of writing and use of English is very similar (though he/she hasn't STARTED USING BLOCK CAPS yet). Re: This is completely unfounded and childish at best, if I use caps lock, I might use it for rare occasions.

4. Although Amerana has gone to some length to say they want to know how to contact Ariobarza, I suspect this is just a smokescreen. And this (quoted from above) is just weird: "It's too bad/ironic she packed the articles with excessive OR and had CIVIL problems, I guess if she was more mature, she could have been a good contributer to wikipedia (as well told me were she got here info from)". Especially since you never mentioned WP:CIVIL in your reply to Amerana. Re: You are wrong here too, because I wrote the word about the CIVIL problem before Dougweller told me, so Dougweller didn't need to tell me about it. I found out earlier, because I had read Wikipedia's guidelines, and when visiting her articles (which anyone can as noted in the previous reply) I saw what other users had been saying to her, and her own rants (and thus concluded she was not CIVIL).

5. For someone who claims to be new to Wikipedia, Amerana seems to know a lot already about processes and past disputes. For instance, on her user page:"Remember, Wikipedia is as reliable as its editors and many of its editors with regards to social sciences are not reliable." She has also marked herself out with the "This user rejects using notability as an inclusion criterion on Wikipedia." banner. Pretty strongly opinionated for someone who has theoretically not yet had an article deleted. Re: I got that quote from another user, and randomly looking for banners that express my interests here. Since I know that she had been banned, I even searched for her ban page on Google, which I found, and read (I also found out she was blocked indefinitely, and not totally banned). The whole reason that I decided to rescue her articles (note, though I copy pasted all her ideas, that does not mean that I will created every single one them). The reason was because I personally believe some of the information is reliable, and as a starting point, dedicated myself to rescueing the reliable information, if you check my talk page now, I got a message from Wikipedia's rescue team, because I listed myself as an inclusionist (I don't reject the contradictory notability law entirely).

6. After approximately three hours of having a wikipedia account [1], they wrote: "Eventhough I have contributed to different articles in Wikipedia, I will still be somewhat busy." Amerana currently has made 1 edit to an article (today). This suggests that they are not a new user at all, but someone trying to evade a block. Re: I said I was busy, because I had a to go on a trip. But because the trip was cancled, it gave me time to edit some more, I included that I'm busy because that is how I am normally. Your comment above is to silly anyways, because it is not always up to me to decide if I am busy or not, certain events are out of man's control.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the general idea. I know there are ways of checking this kind of suspicion out, but that is the limit of my knowledge - I thought I would bring this to your attention because of your previous experience with Ariobarza. I apologise in advance if this turns out to be a wild-goose chase, but I'm there's something very suspicious about it all. Re: Your last writing gives it away, your right this message is the "limit of your knowledge". If you had Spyed me better, you would have concluded that I'm not Ariobarza. But because your head is too clouded with getting back at Ariobarza, you'll do anything to make sure her work stays buried. I for one, plus some other users agree that Ariobarza, though given a lot of chances to improve herself, was ultimately treated very badly by some users on Wikipedia. She confirms on her talk page about an IP address that tried to blank her page, and various other things that users have done to her (I guess that is why she left, plus finding other interests). But I have no interest with Ariobarza, I just think we should be more appreciative of each others contributions. Please understand, that I have no dispute with you or anyone else on Wikipedia. I have somewhat considered your message to be threatening towards me, because in trying to persuade Dougweller with the now proven wrong information that I'm Ariobarza, I don't want to be banned for mistakin identity, I hope this is not too hard to understand... If you have any questions, please respond on my talk page, thank you.--Amerana (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Amerana talk[reply]

Reply

Okay, first off as you made an early apology on your talk page, I would like to make an late one on my part. I was just confused and astonished at your first message, so I would now like to apologize for my rude toned message on your page. Your right, now seeing Ariobarza's edits, they are very similar to mine, and therefore I wont prejude you for mistaking me as her. The only time I used an IP address to edit was before I made an account on Wikipedia, and when I am not logged in. I did not know you watchlisted those pages, that is why I thought you stalked me, so its good you cleared that up.

I came upon the conclusions of "getting back" and "burying her articles" from reading her various disputes with other users, I admit I did not see one that was between you and her, but I assumed because people hated her articles, they did not want them to resurface again. That message I percieved as being towards me, therefore I felt somewhat threatened, but because of your new comment, I understand your right to report such suspicions. I don't understand how "not" to act like Ariobarza, do you want me not to edit certain articles? I have only been on Wikipedia for a month or so, so I suggest you too not to prejude me, if you checked my interests, they are more than just GreekoPersian topics, I have a wider range of interests than Ariobarza's range. And will and have edited in other areas of Wikipedia.

As of now, I have not edited in my one userspace on her ideas, and have been fixing errors in other articles. No one can tell me how to act, but seeing that involvment with Ariobarza is a problem here, I'll edit in my other interests. Like I said, I have many other interests and don't care about Ariobarza, only a few of her uncreated/ deleted articles, which I suggested to user Dougweller to improve and put many of them in one article to save space, because some of them are too small for one article. Also Dougweller told me Ariobarza was opposed to my idea, which he then agreed with mine! So I'll go back to making normal editing as such. Anyways, I am kinda glad you brought this issue up, as I have never intended to be like her, and never will. Best regards.--Amerana (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox

I like your toolbox. Can you write in a nutshell how to use it? Eventually, you can link to more exhaustive explanations. I think of generally integrating it into the current A-class review system. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well the coords should have made a better introduction. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Persian invasion of Greece

Is currently reviewed by me and I invited User:Bellhalla to join the review. I already pointed out some issues I want improved, such as a more detailed equipment section because it's perceived as a soldier's war where the equipment counted very much. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending Lazenby after some initial problems. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 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) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine navy conclusion section

I have removed some of the info from the lead and added some more to compose a section summarizing the role of the Byz. navy. I have kept it to the barest minimum, since I've over time I have encountered the most deviating positions and opinions (some claim the Byzantines were not interested at all in the navy, others claim they are to be equated with the British Empire!). Personally, I'd prefer not to present a summary like this, since by definition it can not really be considered NPOV, and it might be misinterpreted. Anyway, any comments would be welcome. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! First off, thanks for copyediting the concluding section. Second, I have also expanded the lead, truing to incorporate some of your suggestions (primarily as far as organizational matters are concerned), as well as going over the article and making various copyedits. If you have time, please give them a check. (I really want your "support" vote to get that "strong" prefix... :) ) Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's been an arduous process, but much more interesting than the first FAC, with so many reviewers participating. The article has certainly been improved a lot as a result, so there it goes:

		The Reviewers Award
		In appreciation of a thorough FAC review and providing several good ideas on improving the Byzantine navy article, Constantine ✍ 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second Persian invasion of Greece

This article has passed GA, but I advise a copyedit(See comment for details). Wandalstouring (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

End of the return of Ariobarza

I finally got around to doing what I probably should have done a while ago. Among other things, the edits that were different to Ariobarza's were virtually all pages I was also editing, and that was odd. Plus this [2]. Anyway, Amerana's edits were just so similar (although she was clever, no caps, no Rawlinson I think), I asked for a CU and it was a direct hit. Amerana has been indef blocked by another Administrator. Thanks for your encouragement and work on this, I'm just sorry I didn't do it sooner. dougweller (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Having received the required number of supports, I've closed the military history WikiProject A-Class review for Battle of Artemisium as successful. Thank you for your contributions, and well done ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazenby

Hi Minister

Sry, I can't even zip it enough to send per email. Let's make a list of books you need and I'll send you a CD(strange, but can't find a better solution). Wandalstouring (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in Epaminondas you use Lazenby and Green (I think notes 6 and 7) without further data (e.g. title of the book?). Can you provide it, so that the books are properly added in "References"?--Yannismarou (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In citation 12, when citing "Hornblower" what do you mean exactly? Lazenby's article on Epaminondas, mentioned in a next citation, in the Oxford Dictionary Hornblower edited? And Fine in citation 13, is the Fine's book I see in the References? Cheers.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an advice from my experience with FAC/FARC. Looong quotes are not so much appreciated; at least not usually and not when there seems to be too many of them. Especially, when in a section the quote is much longer than the actual prose itself, this does not look so nice.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 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) 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for the very kind comment on my talk page - it was a pleasure to do the review. Hope to see the article at FA! Gonzonoir (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epaminondas

Hi MinisterForBadTimes,

I have just seen your reversion of my changes in Epaminondas. I haven't got the sources nor the knowledge, so excuse me if I made a mistake.

The thing is that I am working on the translation of the article to the spanish wikipedia, and I detected a contradiction in the content of the article. According to the section "Thessaly (368 BC)", Epaminondas led a second Theban expedition to free Pelopidas in spring 367, while the section "Third invasion of the Peloponnesus (367 BC)" states that that was the date of the third invasion.

If the second date is correct, then I suppose the wrong date is the first one. Is this correct?

Regards, --Filipo (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there is no other explanation than the fact that different sources sometimes offer different dates. Thank you for the changes; I am already translating those changes into the spanish version. Regards, --Filipo (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 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) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ionian Revolt is now a Good Article

Hello. I've reviewed the article Ionian Revolt for its nomination for Good Article statusand believe it fulfills all the requirements, so I have passed the article. During my review I noted some items that I think will enhance the article if you wish to pursue higher assessments.My complete review may be found here. If you have any questions about the review, please note them on the review page (which is on my watchlist) and I will answer them there. Thanks, and good editing. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Rams

Hello and thanks for the message. I appreciate the thought :). I have Goldsworthy's book, and I intend to use it in a tactics & armaments section in the Hellenistic-era warships article, since the decline of ramming is not a subject directly related to Byzantium but had begun far earlier. It would however be also useful here. If you are interested, you can add whatever info you have got! BTW, let me use the opportunity to congratulate you on a steady stream of high-quality articles on the Greco-Persian Wars. Εύγε! Best regards, Constantine ✍ 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		For consistently making high-quality articles on the Greco-Persian Wars. Constantine ✍ 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 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) 03:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Staffordshire Regiment GA review

Hi

I've added a couple of paragraphs as suggetsed on the history of the 64th & 98th regiments. Enough, too little, too much? NtheP (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the comments. If no-one else beats me to it I'll answer them over the weekend. NtheP (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Crusade

Hi, thanks for your help with the First Crusade article...I was in the middle of cleaning it up awhile ago, but I got bogged down with other stuff and I haven't gotten back to it yet. I know it's not ready for FA yet and I doubt it would even be worthy of GA at the moment. I'll try to finish working on it. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 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) 23:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco–Persian Wars

Hi, I have a concern about the stalemate result (expressed briefly Talk:Greco–Persian_Wars#The_result, but probably went unnoticed). I believe the stalemate is synthetic or represents a minor view at most since many reliable sources point to ultimate Greek victory: Britannica, Hutchinson encyclopedia, Encarta 2003, Ground warfare: an international encyclopedia, Cambridge companion to Herodotus etc. Actually I have not seen a single reference which mentions stalemate and it seems better to reflect the majority view, though minor reservations may exist. Brandt 16:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for First Crusade GA Review and related work on First Crusade

		The Original Barnstar
		Reading First Crusade, I saw your work for an article under review that could have been quick-failed outright. For carrying on regardless by completing a thumbs-up evaluation, and doing a lot of work on the article yourself, despite the fact the article doesn't appear as if it's going to be able to pass, I award you this barnstar. Otumba (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for your response. Otumba (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Crusade GA

I'm sorry for being so late on the GA review. You can fail the GA if you wish, but I will continue improvements on the article. —M C 10|Sign here! 02:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the review having been open for over two months, perhaps maybe it should be closed? Otumba (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander the Great

Hello, MinisterForBadTimes. You have new messages at Talk:Alexander the Great#First draft using MFBT's suggestions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Persian Wars

I'm reviewing this article in GA, but this will likely take more than a month because it's very long and I will have limited internet access from mid-September till mid-October. If you're fine with that we can get started. Possibly, I can recruit someone else to do parts of the review. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Internet has been very limited while I worked in the Netherlands. Another editor seems also interested in reviewing this article. Let's see, two pairs of eyes see more than one. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You two were great . . .

I have to tell you, this past week has dramatically changed my outlook on Wikipedia. The work done on Alexander the Great has got to be the model for how editors should work together. And you deserve some recognition for your efforts.

		The Half Barnstar
		To MinisterForBadTimes, for demonstrating incredible knowledge, patience, and most of all, an abundance of apparently innate good faith while working on the lead section for Alexander the Great with GK1973, I award you this Half Barnstar, as a demonstration that the two of you together constitute one truly outstanding resource for this encyclopedia. Un school 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I am truly grateful that you two let me participate. My knowledge of Ancient Greek history is so deficient that I could have spent ten times as long working on it, with books and books to look at, and my lead could never have been as good as what was accomplished with the knowledge you two brought to the page. I hope you're proud at what you've done, you deserve it. Best wishes you two, I hope we meet up again someday. Un school 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 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) 20:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

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]

Alexander the Great

Hey mate! Could you give me the discussion and consensus for this? Thank you! Sthenel (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All these arguments are very reasonable, but using a link to a period of history referring to the origin of a person is rather illogical. I've realized that wikipedia has deflected from its original route and presents some key points in several articles in a strange way which is not always per sources. However, you are not responsible for this, so thanks for the answer! Sthenel (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

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) 02:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne Cathedral interior volume of 407,000 m³ is impossible

There are two language versions of the cathedral's own Web site: in German [3] and in English [4]. The original description Umbauter Raum ohne Strebewerk 407.000 cbm is obviously correct, but its translation Interior area without buttresses 407.000 cbm is incorrect and illogical since it does not make sense to exclude buttresses from an interior for obviously buttresses are not in the interior. Raum refers to 3D and not 2D, hence - to space and volume rather than to area. Raum may refer to area only with the 3rd dimension, like area between buildings, or territory. Umbauter Raum means building volume [5] or cubature, cubage [6]. Exactly, it means built up (embraced) space, but not built over space, since um- means round, around [7]. Everywhere, cubature, cubage refers to space taken by a building meaning its exterior. Hence, adding without buttresses, which is exclusion of parts of an exterior, make sense in reference only to a volume of the exterior, since it does not need be mentioned in reference to an interior they are not part of. In other words, 407,000 m³ refers and has to refer to a cathedral's (exterior) volume, which is not surprising considering an implied honesty of the cathedral's management, though the English translation is somehow unfortunate. --71.247.231.74 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

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) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

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) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Persian Wars

The review is getting to a close. Please let me know how long it will take you to iron out the issues we commented. Afterwards I can go through the article again for minor issues and then make it GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. I'm not in a hurry, just wanted to make sure I don't end up with someone slapping me coz my reviews don't make progress. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a summary of arms and armour. Otherwise we have to repeat it in every article. You could keep it very short by integrating it into the narrative of significant battles. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2009(UTC)

I would shorten the warfare section and add some information. The Greeks had light armed infantry that was half of their troops or even more and the Persians had heavy armed infantry protecting the archers against spearmen, it's called sparabara. Thus, the principal system is similar, but the Greeks have heavier bodyarmour and the Persians possibly rely more on light armed troops, but you can't really tell. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here you can find more information about the Persian system: Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. It's an Osprey and thus not a truly WP:RS, but it has a list of reliable sources. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check grammar and sense of the warfare section. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened and corrected the warfare section (the equipment differed from polis to polis). This article is quite long, so let's skip all unnecessary elements. I gave you a hint that ther needs to be a short introduction about warfare in the Eastern Mediterranean. Perhaps say that we have no report of these regions(European Greek homeland vs. Iranian plateau) clashing in combat before. Something like all had spears and the Greeks prefered javelins while the Persians had bows. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were no skirmishers at Marathon because the zeugites feared the poor would ally with the Persians. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Greco-Persian Wars passed its GA review. Before nominating it for FAC you should expand the Warfare in the Eastern Mediterranean section because that will surely be critized as seemingly short. I would suggest to take all similarities into this section and only discuss differences in the specific subsections. You can also briefly discuss the possible introduction of the machaira during this war as a Persian influence on the Greeks and why the Persians prefered to hire Greek mercenaries instead of changing their way of fighting. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thermopylae Vs Battle of Persian Gate

I'd like your input in the talk pages of those (above) two articles if you don't mind. Since you have voiced an opinion different to mine I don't think my actions (inviting you) can be considered canvassing. I'm just hopeful that you can provide answers to some of my questions and explanations that other users fail to do so far. Or maybe I can even convince you, who knows. Please use references in your arguments if you can. And have a nice day. Simanos (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, 89.210.189.119 is also me, I just created the account today because some editor refused to talk to me as an IP. Simanos (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I disagree with you. I just wanted to point out how the same people pushed pov bias in both articles (and lie about it). How can anyone call one battle Decisive and the other Pyrrhic.Though to be honest I don't consider either battle a decisive victory, just plain ones. Thermopylae was just a victory it didn't decide the war and its outcome was expected (and the Persians lost the war which wouldn't be expected after a decisive victory). On the other hand Alexander had already pretty much beaten Darius/Persia already. It was just a matter of going the distance and taking the cities. He wouldn't face real problems again until the Afghan campaign (and then India).

I disagree with your argument about Greece losing most (60%) of Greece. At the time most of Greece was the Peloponnese and Athens. Ionia, Macedonia and Thessaly were already in Persian Hands and Thebes was making side-deals too. The other cities (that the Persians got after Thermopylae) weren't that powerful really (and some of their armies were already used up). Also Persians failed to enslave the Athenians who escaped their doomed city so another objective was not reached. Though that is probably more the navy's "fault". On the other hand, Alexander conquered a fully stocked capital, not only with population, but also the biggest treasury of the world. And had no ill consequences after the battle.

Also the word "Decisive" in both articles is going to gather more opinionated editors pushing for inserting "Pyrrhic" in both articles perpetually and given the above reasons I think the articles would be safer if both had the word decisive removed. As I show in my arguments it's not completely unreasonable either.

Personally I see decisive as a victory that changes the route of a war completely, or makes someone surrender or lose the war outright. Like Waterloo for Napoleon, Midway for the USA in WW2, etc. Otherwise one can argue for pretty much every other victory to be decisive. Simanos (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW did you mean to change the Ctesias number to 80,000 because in the text referenced he clearly says 800,000 Simanos (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, as luck would have it I just passed by Thermopylae, on my way from Thessaloniki to Patras, but sadly the new road doesn't pass right by the monument like the old road. Couldn't pay my respects ;p Simanos (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Persian Gate

It seems you reverted the NPOV tag in the article. How is the article not neutral? warrior 4321 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thermopylae

To prevent this going any further, could you put your points on the IPs talk page? Hopefully they can be engaged in discussion and distracted from the article. Although they're using edit summaries too, it's possible they're not reading yours. Nev1 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer. Thank you. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.147.100 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

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) 19:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

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) 03:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2009 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Persian Gate

I've removed the sockpuppet edits by reverting to an earlier version, you might want to replace your edits. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Roman inquires

Your input would be appreciated at

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymical list of counties of the United Kingdom

Hi Minister. Shouldn't the list be expanded to include the present Welsh counties/county boroughs? Maybe even the Scottish council areas? Hope you don't mind me contacting you on this, but you do seem to be playing a leading role on the page. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wars of the Delian League

~~Dear MFBT, please try to solve this issues, because I don't have credibility/authorization for it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.174.70 (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Since you still haven't see discussion, I put this sentence at top of the article:
This article refers to wars between Delian League and Persia, for other wars of the Delian League see: First Peloponnesian War and Peloponnesian War

People may get confused because according your given name of article ("Wars of the Delian League") it refers that whole Dealian Wars finished in 449 BC, but in mainland Greece they lasted till 404 BC. Other choice is renaming article, but it isn't on me. --93.142.162.53 (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, it does speaks of later conflicts but only in few sentences. All article's introduction and table refers just to wars against Persians, but there is nothing about Peloponnesian Wars... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.151.235 (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 04:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]