User talk:Wandalstouring/archive 7

Re: help

Well, the immediate problem was the unclosed includonly tag; with that removed, the rest should be visible. There seems to be something quirky with some of the conditional statements (should the title actually be defaulting to "Videos"?), but that's a minor issue. Cheers! Kirill 13:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking at Targe, and I can't see anything wrong with the article. What's the problem that you're seeing? Kirill 13:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean. Looking at the article, the box has the header "External images", and no other header text appears to be used. Could you please tell me precisely what text you expect to see where? Otherwise, I really don't know what the problem is. Kirill 02:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what it's doing right now. I think you're having a cache problem, and seeing an older version of the template; try clearing your browser cache (Ctrl+Shift+R or Ctrl+Shift+F5) and seeing if that makes any difference. Kirill 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Carthage

Hi, please see the Talk page re the above. Regards, bigpad (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the above with no explanation. If you don't like the facts, take it to Talk. And have a look at the "Punic Wars" while you're at it. bigpad (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish culture during World War II

Please note you've a reply waiting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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) 05:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hamilcar's Wife

Hi, You recently deleted an addition ([1]) to the Hannibal article pertaining to the nationality of Hannibal's mother. I did not make this addition nor do I know if the addition is correct but it is quite plausible that Hamilar's wife was Iberian as he was involved in conducting military operations in Iberia and it was common practice at the time to strengthen military alliances through marriages. Perhaps the alleged factoid should be reverted with a "citation needed" tag? If no one comes up with a reliable citation then the factoid could be removed. Davidzuccaro (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriation (Archaeology)

Hi, Danke für die Blumen für den Seriations-Artikel, hatte jetzt lange keine Zeit mehr, mich darum zu kümmern. Deshalb erst jetzt meine Rückmeldung auf Ihre / Deine Frage - ich gestehe, dass ich sie nicht so ganz verstehe "mathematics of the multidimensional graphs derived from a seriation"??? Korrespondenzanalyse wird doch auf der entsprechenden Wikipedia-Seite erklärt, nicht gerade genial, aber wenn, dann gehören die mathematischen Erklärungen wohl dort hin - oder habe ich das nicht richtig verstanden? Archy33 (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish images

I sent them an email, hoping for at least some kind of response. I'm trying to gauge their interests; if they were to email me back I could easily tell someone with more experience than I do (I am also trying to use the fact that I'm from Spain). It seems, though, as if my only hope is to visit the archives the next time I go to Spain (possibly during the summer). JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now I'm looking for images pertaining to the Trubia light tank (which Ávila certainly has; I've seen them published) and to the Alhucemas landing in 1924. What kind of background information do you need? JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Plataea

Thanks for the review so far, and thanks also for the info you left on my talk-page. I've been away from editing for a few days, but hopefully tomorrow will be able to incorporate this into the article. Thanks again, Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Late Roman army

The Empire in 125 CE

Done. PS: Check out the enhanced map of the Roman empire under Hadrian (executed by Andrei Nacu under my direction): as well as an improved colour scheme and greater legibility, it now includes Roman road names (where known), Roman puppet-states, and the names of barbarian tribal nations, colour-coded for linguistic group. The advantage is that it is all in one image, so you get the complete picture: in other words, the equivalent of a fold-out map, not a map-book. It is designed to be the definitive online map of the Roman empire (I challenge you to find a better one on the Internet!) NB: There a few corrections still pending, so this is not the final version EraNavigator (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

He does all kind of maps (also of battles). But he is not keen to expand his contributions to Wikipedia because he resents not controlling copyright. Like me, he is using his contributions to learn the ropes and as "shop-window content" for his credibility. But he wants to branch out on his own. He has agreed to draw a decent map of the Battle of Strasbourg for me, but I don't know if he is willing to do more. I suggest that you wait until he has completed Strasbourg before approaching him with other projects. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Long-term project" is THE appropriate term for Second Punic War! I think you should make an effort to complete it before worrying about maps. I have pointed out to Andrei the educational importance of Wiki maps. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

I see you can not be contacted by email. I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding the situation on the talk page of Horses in warfare. With the edition of a couple of new editors, who seem to favor completely changing the article into something else, things have become very hostile. I hope you are still planning to work on the article this weekend. I look forward to seeing your changes. - Josette (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wandal, like Josette, I noticed we seem to have some totally new people even I haven't run into before getting involved. Any notion if there is a post about this article somewhere that is drawing in some of these folks? No real need to answer, but if you should run across something. I mean, two rounds of review by military history wikiproject weren't this rough. Something is going on. By the way have fun in your sandbox but beware too many cooks. Montanabw^(talk) 07:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again W, I think you are basically on the right track in that we have sort of a tactics and technology thread AND a history thread. For now, let's not be in a big hurry to split the article until we see where the sandbox goes. My personal thinking is that the old tactics stuff on chariots, etc., may be able to be split up, some going into your new categories and some going into what is missing from the history section, the Ancient world. I am going to recommend two new headers in the history section that you can use to move things into so that we don't have to mess up the old text while working on new stuff. Oh and Wandal, for us horse people, WTF is "tross?" (LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Carpi

Check out my complete upgrade of Carpi (Dacian tribe). I want to do more on the archaeology, but can you grant it a B as it stands? PS: Also check out my proposal (and add your comment) for a title change for the article Equestrian order on its discussion page EraNavigator (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Working on it. EraNavigator (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Crossbow

Hi Fayssal

You were critical of the lead in horses in warfare. Could you write an expanded lead for crossbow. I've been heavily involved in editing this article and want to abstain from summarizing it in fear of POV issues. Some fresh eyes are therefor rather welcome. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice subject while full of controversies. There's a lot of work ahead for the article to become a good one.

I cannot rewrite/develop the introduction while many points are still debated. Anyway, I've just started gathering some sources which I'll bring to the discussion page. We need to discuss those points briefly —since most of them have been treated at talk with good but limited success— before delving into the intro. Getting back to you within a couple of days. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Crossbow#Introduction rewritten. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Wandalstouring. You have new messages at Bellhalla's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Carpi

I have addressed your points in Carpi (Dacian tribe). I have also added a para on the 4th c. in the History and 3 Notes, which please read. Also read, if you have time, the Niculescu paper on interpretation of archaeological data by Romanian scholars, which I have linked to the article. I think this should be enough for a B, although I plan more work on the archaeology. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I am using "nation" to mean a broad ethno-linguistic group (e.g. Dacians), as opposed to a "tribe" (e.g. Carpi) which were distinct subdivisions of "nations". I don't think the Romans used natio quite in this way: they used the term indiscriminately for any barbarian group, whether nation or tribe. I will add (ethno-linuguistic group) to nation to clrify the meaning. EraNavigator (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've dealt with the fact tags. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Mycale

Thanks for agreeing to review another Greco-Persian battle! I'm away for a week from tomorrow, so I won't be making any corrections to the article during that time. However, I will address any issues as quickly as possible when I get back.

Regards, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Yarmouk

hi, thanks for apreciation. I made them simply using paint and microsoft word. I would like to make more maps, tell me if there is need of map in any article. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

and i will edit maps to show the capm sites in March, as i will be busy in febuary. Mohammad Adil (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I will work on them in 2nd week of march.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• ok i will try to teach others too, actually i am not a very good teacher, but still i will try my best

Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bastarnae

Check out (and please grade) my total upgrade of Bastarnae article. PS: Check out final version of Andrei Nacu's brilliant map (now includes gold and silver mines) Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mangonel

Thanks for the heads up, I've added appropriate references. Now the rest of the article needs some! Actually, trebuchet and all the mechanical artillery pages could use a lot of work.Megalophias (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Blue discharge

I have responded to your comments at the GA review. Can you please let me know whether I have addressed your concerns or if there is something additional that you're looking for? Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Bastarnae

I've dealt with your tags. PS: regarding the gold and silver deposits, we've only shown the major mining areas, not very single mine. The data is from the Barrington Atlas of the Greek & Roman World (2000) by far the best and most up-to-date classical atlas (have you seen it?) EraNavigator (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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) 05:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Equestrian order

Check out (and please respond to) my response to your comment on renaming this article (discussion page of Equestrian order) EraNavigator (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

More data on English-language encyclopedias (in discussion page of Equestrian order EraNavigator (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Teaching others to make maps

I appreciate your offer to teach other users to make maps, but unfortunately I don't have time for this. However, if you personally have any questions or you need help with some maps, I would be glad to give you a hand, depending on how much time I can spare.

Andrei nacu (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Equites

I know that this is a trivial issue, but I don't see the logic of your stance (or that of the opposer to the move). You say the rules require the article's title to reflect the usual term: and I have proved to you that in English-language encyclopedias, the usual term is "equites". In addition, the title must not be ambiguous i.e. it must not be a term that could refer to other subjects. "Equestrian order", unless qualified by "Roman", is ambiguous because it can refer to knightly orders other than the Roman ones. The modern sources I used for the article use variously the terms "equites", "knights", "equestrians" and "equestrian order". There is no preferred term. But in relation to what the title should be this is irrelevant - obviuosly "equestrian order" or "equestrians" is understood to mean "Roman equestrians" in the context of a book about a Roman subject. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The implication of your position is that one would have to trawl through every book written on Roman history, adding up the number of times "equites" is used and comparing it to the frequency of "equestrian order" - which is obviously absurd. In any case, I can guarantee the result of such an exercise in advance (of the 100 years it would take you to complete it): "equites" would be far more frequent than "equestrian order" - when I said there is no preferred term, I meant that all 4 terms are used, depending on the context. But "equites" is far more common than the others. But in general, the sensible (I know that is not often the operative term on Wiki) approach to naming an article is simply to follow the general enycyclopedic convention. EraNavigator (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But in any case, you are ignoring my point about ambiguity. It's the same as naming an article about the Roman Senate just "Senate": the term could refer to any number of other senates, e.g. the U.S. Senate. In the same way, "euestrian order" could refer to other equestrian orders, such as the pontifical equestrian orders or the medieval equestrian orders. So if you use an English term, such as "equestrian order", it must be qualified by "Roman" to be precise. Alternatively, and better in my view, use a Latin term such as equites. EraNavigator (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Artemisium

Hi, and thanks for agreeing to review another Greco-Persian War article. As to your questions:

1. The Greek fleet that tried to trap the Persian ships: The fleet from Artemisium never set sail, because of the storm which wrecked the Persian detachment. The fleet which was patrolling the coast of Attica is, I think, Holland's deduction (based on the disparity in numbers relative to Salamis), and therefore there is no clear what happened to it (if anything) before Salamis. I have added a note to clear this point up slightly.
2. Not sure what Lazenby is doing in the bibliography, I can't work out whether it was me that added him or not. I shall remove him.

Thanks again MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of Lazenby, but I have now obtained a copy. I've started adding in new details to Battle of Artemisium, and will then go back through the other battles and see if there's anything I can add to them (I'm sure there will be). The only question is, will I get it done before I have to return it to the library...? MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the kind comments. As you may have seen, I've submitted it to MILHIST A-class review. As regards Lazenby, if you can make a copy of Lazenby, and it won't be too much trouble, then please do. It would be useful to have a 'permanent' copy. And as you say, other editors may find it useful. Much though I like Holland, Lazenby's style is perfect for helping with Wikipedia articles! Thanks, MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Confused?

You left a message at the talk page of Mike Godwin (legal counsel for Wikimedia Foundation): [2] implying that he was vandalously moving pages. You may want to check your sources and retract that. He has not edited since February 3rd, and has only edited and actual article last September: [3]. Cheers! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, holy shit? This might be a good idea to bring to the community... Hmmm... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I figgered it out. Our favorite vandal created an account called Mikegodwin, redirected the user page and user talk page to the REAL Mike Godwin's account, and then proceeded to Grawp it up. No cause for alarm. The guy who committed the vandalism was not the guy who you left a message for. You got taken in by his deviousness. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

When the account was renamed, it freed up the old account. Check the date the account was moved (October 2nd): [4] with the date the new account with the same name was created: October 3rd. Grawp found a little loophole in the way things work to stir up trouble. He just let this one lie dormant for some time before doing the dirty stuff. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing an account with a userpage. I can create a page named anything I want. I can create a page named User:Jayron3232 right now, and it doesn't mean that there is a user account named Jayron3232. Grawp just realized that the userpage named User:Mikegodwin was orphaned (i.e. it was a userpage for an account that did not exist). He created that account, and then vandalized with it. No mystery. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Toolbox

The toolbox on the review page seems to be part of the new A-class review system. It's not my creation! I was quite surprised when it appeared, but it's very useful! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Thank you for your GA review of Hispanics in the United States Marine Corps, I am happy that you liked it. I therefore assume that it did pass GA, but the "tag" on the article's talk page still has it as if it is a candidate (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexander

Hi!

What have you done with Alexander?! Sorry, but my program is a bit, how can I say it, erratic! I leave for Brussels, and I have a lot of preparations. I don't know what I will find there, and I won't have my books with me. Only what I'll buy there and the Internet. I am willing to help, but I don't want to give promises I won't keep. I also wanted to bring with WP:GREECE Greek War of Independence to FA status, but ...

I'll therefore join the task, but I don't promise I'll manage to be as consistent and reliable as I demand from myself for such huge tasks, and I also don't know If I'll manage to tolerate the frustration I'm sure the fanatics and trolls of all kind will cause!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

I was wondering if you could be kind enough to do the review on Hispanics in the United States Navy "GA" nomination. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply. I understand. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Late Roman army

I don't know if yours is a typical result. I just used Yahoo (which uses Google search) and I got Late Roman army top of the page with the picture alongside. I agree Roman army needs a rewrite, but I don't have the time or inclination. Why don't you do it? PS: Check out the new, detailed reconstruction of the order of battle at Battle of Strasbourg, done by Andrei with my consultancy. EraNavigator (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Battle of Triangle Hill

Certainly. That said, I must apologize in advance because I will be unable to do a great deal with regards to copyediting until next week at the earliest. If it isn't a matter of utmost urgency, I'm more than willing to help. Cam ^(Chat) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Persian invasion of Greece

Hi, thanks for the comments on this article so far. I will get round to addressing them this weekend. My e-mail address for the copy of Lazenby is: cornishmilitia@hotmail.com. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Battle of Gannoruwa

Hello, Wandalstouring. You have new messages at Chamal N's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chamal ^talk 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again :) I've replied at my talk page. Chamal ^talk 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

ACRs

I've replied. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tried for more improvements. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied about the chemicals. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping again. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

From my reading of the source, the things I listed must be the raw chemicals pre-catalysis, because they liquids up until about 120 degrees celsius, and they can't be the finished product. I think it is consistent. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thnaks

hi, Thanks for the award.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Hispanics in the United States Navy

Thanks for your note. I may not have time to conduct a review for a while, but I'll get in touch with Tony anyway and see if we can sort something out. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Victory coins

Hi Wandalstouring. Sorry, but I don't have dates for the Alexander victory coins at this point. The metal is silver. I'll keep you posted when I manage to find the dates (which, if I remember well were c.324 BCE anyway, just before the death of Alexander). Cheers PHG (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment working group

Sorry, fixed the link. cmadler (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine navy

Hello! I have already replied on that issue in the FAC page. In short, for reasons of clarity of structure, as well as because this is a format followed by most historical articles (and books), I prefer to keep the current version. Also, aside from that issue, do any of your other concerns stand, or have they been resolved? If so, please strike them out so that there is better overview. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 14:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is that other editors (Gun Powder Ma, for instance, but also others who have expressed their opinion over the article in the past) seem to have no problem with the structure itself, and rather support its retention. And as noted, I don't see how splitting the article into what is in essence three distinct articles would help the coherent presentation of the subject. As for the late Byzantine ships, I partly agree. On the one side, more ought to be added , but we cannot go into the level of detail we went for the middle period, since there were, AFAIK, no distinctively Byzantine designs. The fact that the Byzantines used Italian-influenced designs is clearly mentioned, and details about these designs ought to be added in a relevant article, not here. The section on ships is already overweight as it is... I am trying o find some more relevant information, but ther is little to go on (any luck with remembering the sources you spoke of?). Regards, Constantine ✍ 21:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		In appreciation of a very thorough FAC review & criticism, which led to a considerable improvement of the Byzantine navy article. With the best regards, Constantine ✍ 10:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai ACR

Hi Wandalstouring, I've split the 'subsequent fighting' section of the article per your comments in the ACR and was wondering if you have any further comments? thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tacfarinas

Check out and please grade my newly revamped Tacfarinas article. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've dealt with your points:

1. Tacitus' exact wording is that Tacfarinas trained and equipped a group of specially picked men as a Roman-style force.
2. I agree that Decrius was more mad than brave and that decimation was an absurdly harsh punishment in the circumstances. It's Tacitus who claims that the punishment had a salutary effect. But I agree that it's illogical in the context, so I've removed it
3. That the Romans may have believed that Tacfarinas was dead is my speculation so I've removed it. EraNavigator (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I' sure the statements you questioned are correct, but I've removed those I can't find a ref for. Regarding Numidian foot soldiers, by unarmoured I mean without metal armour. Sallust describes them as pedites expediti or veloces (unencumbered or swift foot soldiers). Since the cavalry wore only a woollen tunic and carried a small leather shield, it is likely the infantry were the same. EraNavigator (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but it is clear from Sallust that Numidian foot was mainly light infantry (i.e. no metal armour) and I have so modified the text.EraNavigator (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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) 20:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Australia and the American Civil War/GA1

I believe all 5 issues have been dealt with including the associated references. Please look them over and if you see anything additional that needs to be done, let us know.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping!  Done? --Doug Coldwell ^talk 13:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for upgrading to GA status.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Tacfarinas

Hi. I notice that Tacfarinas is included in the Wiki Biography project only. Should it notform part of MilitaryHistory project also? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for fixing my typos in Society and culture of the Han Dynasty. It's currently a GAC; any suggestions on how to improve the article?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, silk is mentioned many times, but if you look at the "Clothing and cuisine" section, it says in the last paragraph:

For the poor, hemp was the common item used to make clothing, while the rich could afford silk clothes.[279] Silk clothes found in Han tombs include padded robes, double-layered robes, single-layered robes, single-layered skirts, shoes, socks, and mittens.[276] The wealthy also wore fox and badger furs, wild duck plumes, and slippers with inlaid leather or silk lining; those of more modest means could wear wool and ferret skins.[280] Large bamboo-matted suitcases found in Han tombs contained clothes and luxury items such as patterned fabric and embroidery, common silk, damask and brocade, and the leno (or gauze) weave, all with rich colors and designs.[276] The Han also had tools for ironing clothes.[267]

I hope that addresses this concern. As for Mozi, you make an excellent point about his absence in the philosophy sub-sections. I'll see what I can find, since the sources I have on hand really don't address Mozi's influence (or lack thereof) on Han-era thought specifically. Do you know of any sources off the top of your head which deal with this particular topic? If so, I hope there are good Chinese philosophy sources at my university library (I'm sure they have a good amount; I've already checked out a significant amount of Chinese history and art sources from there).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

By doing a quick search for "Mozi" at GMU's library catalogue, I found these results:

• Introduction to Chinese philosophy : from ancient philosophy to Chinese Buddhism (2006), JeeLoo Liu.
• Mozi : basic writings (2003), translated by Burton Watson.
• Readings in classical Chinese philosophy (2005), edited by Philip J. Ivanhoe and Bryan W. Van Norden.

Have you ever read these specific works? If so, I'd like to know how relevant they are to Han-era philosophical developments.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Any help would be greatly appreciated. Don't work too hard on researching these sources though. I don't want to expand the size of the article very much in a discussion on Mozi and other schools of thought, because the article's prose size is already getting rather large. Someone in an up-and-coming FAC review might even raise concerns and objections over the article's size as it stands now. Keep this in mind, and the fact that I recently copy-edited the entire article to reduce its prose size. But in any case, a couple or a few sentences about Mozi and others can be added since they are certainly relevant to the topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Glenmama

Hi, thanks for reviewing Battle of Glenmama. Since I'm always trying to improve on my articles, I'm wondering if you could give any pointers as to the "obvious omissions or inaccuracies" in the article. Thanks.  :-) --Grimhelm (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll keep my discussion there. --Grimhelm (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way (in case there has been a point of confusion). "The first GA is often the hardest"? I've written 14 GAs.  ;-) --Grimhelm (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Midshipman

Terribly sorry, I had reviewed the article below that one, and when I removed the request I accidentally left behind that notice. Have fun reviewing. Cool3 (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HT review

Hey, thanks for letting me know that you're reviewing homosexual transsexual. I'm a bit concerned that you say that for concerns about the article to be taken seriously, someone should be a GA reviewer, as in Wikipedia:RGA#About_the_process, it says that people who have significantly contributed to an article (as Jokestress and Hfarmer both have) should refrain from reviewing it. I'm also concerned that you're advocating removing the citations from the lead - in WP:LEADCITE (part of WP:LEAD, it says that if anything really controversial is said in the lead, (and I gather that the entire article is controversial) it still needs a citation. Good luck with reviewing the article. --Malkinann (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I would be glad to take a look at the prose of the article after you have done your complete review. RL is a bit busy for my right now, but I will try to get to it as soon as I can. Just let me know when you're ready. A couple of comments:

• Like Malkinann above, I was a little confused by your comment that said "I don't mind other people voicing their opinions, but this is a GA review and you have to do it properly. This means, sign up as a reviewer if you want to voice any valid concerns." The only three people who had commented above you were Hfarmer, Jokestress and me. The first two are the editors are both heavily involved in the article, and I had just failed its last GA nom and was commenting to make sure the new reviewer knew what was going on. I don't think any of us are qualified to be the new reviewer for the article.
• The current little debate happening on the review page may show you why I failed it last time. This article may be technically somewhat stable, but there is continuing debate about content on the talk page, and the only reason the article itself isn't the subject of an edit war is that one of the editors has decided to refrain from editing the article itself at all. I still don't feel that this article qualifies as stable, but maybe you have a different opinion than me. Despite this, I still will hold to my promise to do a prose review if you feel that everything else qualifies as GA.

It's good to see reviewers expanding outside of one area on GAN. Good luck in the review process. Dana boomer (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Per your message on my talk page, I'll work on a criticism section that summarizes the trajectory of the debate chronologically. It may be a day or two. You may need to help me with getting it added to the article. I have voluntarily recused myself from editing the article directly at this time, but others with significant WP:COI and WP:OWN issues continue to edit it, systematically removing/downplaying criticism of this term and asserting its legitimacy as a term. This has been going on for years. Thanks for your work on this. Jokestress (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You commented on my article talk page that it has to be clear when it was coined and by whom and how the idea spread. In the introduction section it is made clear that it was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld in 1923, and used in some form by various researchers ever since. i.e. on the Benjamin scale which was published in book "Transsexual Phenomenon" by Harry Benjamin he has six levels of transsexual intensity which he associates with homosexual orientation. This was so influential because the professional organizeation which set the standars of care for transsexuals ( the Benjamin Standards of care). Some transsexuals so revere him that they even wish to call their conition "Harry Benjamin Syndrome". I suppose I could make it clearer just how influential Benjamin was in all of this. --Hfarmer (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added in what I feel are sufficent parenthetical references (author date). Not one next to each ref tag. However it should be enough ofr anyone with the attention span of a higher mamal to make the connections. --Hfarmer (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If the information you removed belongs in the lead, and what's in the lead must be in the article; then where in the article should that info go.--Hfarmer (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tacfarinas

I have now polished up the Tacfarinas article. Could you please read it through again and tell me whether it could qualify for GA status? (PS: And the same for Bastarnae) Regards EraNavigator (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding sources, Tacitus is the sole ancient source. As regards modern sources, very little has been written about Tacfarinas, so it is not possible to debate the source material in the way one can for Xerxes' invasion - which has an enormous modern literature. Anyway, I've added a brief section on sources with the view of C.R. Whittaker

Regarding Tacfarinas' length of service, I checked the Latin (Tacitus Ann. II.52) and the wording is stipendia meruit. Stipendium merere was a technical Army term meaning "to serve for one year". So stipendia meruit means "he served for some years". Tacitus adds mox desertor. This could mean "soon a desertor", but in this context the alternative meaning of mox that is "after that" fits better. So I think a fair translation is "he served for a number of years then deserted". EraNavigator (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whittaker does not clearly give reasons for his view, but it seems to be based on Tacfarinas' inability to take Roman fortified positions or to beat the Romans in pitched battle. I've included a sentence to this effect in the Sources. But it is legitimate to put the case against his view also.EraNavigator (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Midshipman

Can you review the Midshipman article again? I've made all the modifications you requested so hopefully its GA now. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae

hi, i have created some maps for Battle of Cannae. I have tried my bast to make it simpler, so that every reader can easily understand them.

1

This map details the arrangement of the carthagian and roman armies. deep formation of Roman army and there weak cavalry power when compaired to carthagians.
onthe other hand this map shows formation of Hannibal. center of the army having wings of punic african cavalry that will remian un-engaged in the battle untill hannibals decisive orders. the cavalry division on left wing is double the size of the cavalry division on the right wing.

2

• the second map shows the roman assault.

Hannibal knowing the fact that his troops could not withstand the tremendous farward thrust and momentum of the Roman infantry, deployed his infantry in semi circular form as the roman advanced. this absorbed the momentum, and rendered the deep deployment of the roman commander, useless. meanwhile as planned, hannibal's cavalry of the wings charged against the respective roman wing cavalries. during all this action, punic african infantry deployed on the flanks of hannible's center remian un-engaged.

3

• the third map shows hannible in a controlled retreat, presumably to form a horse-shoe formation, that will greatly disturb the roman ranks as they will gather in side tjhat horse-shor like a crowed !

meanwhile carthagian cavalry routed the roman cavalry.

4

• the fourth map shows the horse-shoe formation of hannibal's infantry and punic african infantry that remian un-engaged during earlies phases, now in action. The romans traped in sdie that horse shoe formation, mostly unable to weild there weapon and carthagian cavalry attacking and encircling them from rear.

• before i paste them on the main article, i need suggestions from you to improve them, is there any thing that i have missed ? or is there any thing that can be added or improved ? i am waiting for your reply.

• Battle of Zama
• i have read this battle's article. so far what i have concluded, is that scipio did used the pincer movement, in the same manner as hannible used at cannae. i wonder why he is not given a due credit of using pincer movement, a maneuver of hannible against hannible. as far as the current article of Zama shows that he did used pincer.

• scipio rendered hannible's elephant corps uneffective by simply letting them pass through his ranks to the rear of his army where presumably they were delt in detail by the some selected warriors.

• roman cavalry routed carthagian cavalry in the same manner as carthagian cavalry routed the roman cavalry at cannae.

• having routed the carthagian cavalry, roman cavalry attacked the rear of hannible's army and in this situation no military force could escape the encircling by the enemy, its virtually impossible, thus the roman cavalry must have encircled hannibl's army as carthagian cavalry did with roman army at cannae.

the difference is of horse-shoe formation, which traped the romans at cannae and inflicted upon them heavy casualties. at zama, it is not clear from article whether scipio used that formation or not, probably he didn't used it, and its obvious when one see the casualties, which are not as high as cannae.

• thus i suggest a mention of pincer movement at zama.

• soon i will upload the maps of zama, once i am done with cannae maps.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is my emain address adil_rais2004@yahoo.com

• did hannibal had cavalry with him in center too ? and you talked about a carthagian arc formation, was it during the last phase of battle (when romans were encircled) or was it in the first phase of the battle, to absorb the shock of the roman's infantry's farward momentum ?
• i had already prepared an other version of the map, as you instructed earlier, anyways send me the copy of that book, i will check it.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tacfarinas

I've expanded the Sources section of Tacfarinas a little and reworded it to make it more neutral. It seems to me that if a mediocre article such as hastati can get GA, then this article must be worth at least that. You will not find a more comprehensive and detailed account anywhere, let alone the internet.EraNavigator (talk) 10:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tried out Spoken WP so far?

Hi,

Have you tried out a reading of a spoken article so far? Im in process of recording two articles to get exposure on long articles. Need any help?

AshLin (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I use a cheap mike myself, with Audacity and Levelator. I need to learn to clean up my recordings though. Have fun! AshLin (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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) 07:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history Coordinator Elections

As a member of the WikiProject who is running for coordinator it is so go great to see people getting involved. Keep Up the Good work. Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 14:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Fountain of Time

You voiced an opinion on Fountain of Time's quality at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fountain of Time. I am now attempting to promote it to WP:FAC. Feel free to comment on its merits for this higher level of quality.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

HT Review part Deu

I have made the changes you wanted as far as I could figure. However the repeated sentence form concern, while I sympathize is something I can't see how to change, and not be biased. I wrote about this in detail on the review page. But basically writing "so and so (said,wrote,states) such and such" is always neutral. Writing "so and so(reports, found, opined, instulted transsexuals by writing... etc. ad nauseum) such and such" is almost never really neutral. Neutral writing about a controversial sensitive and emotionally charged topic is always going to look bland IMHO.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae-New maps

Hi these are the new maps for battle of cannae.

1

• As daly mentioned that initially the front of Hannibal was straight line, but became a crescent shaped once hannibal took farward the regiments from his center. The african infantry at the flanks was deployed in a the form of columns to facilitate the maneuverability of its men in order to encircle the Roman flanks.

1

• Hannibals cavalry engaged with the opposing cavalry at the wings while hannibal led the regiments from his center, farward to the romans, thus forming a crescent shape front.

1

• Cavalry at roman's right flanks attacked at rear by the carthagian cavalry. Roman infantry engaged with carthagian infantry and while african infantry at the flanks remained un-engaged.

1

• Hannibal's center under a controled retreat to in a horse-shoe formation to draw more romans in side the horse shoe, roman line lost cohesion. Roman cavalry of right wing routed, while roman cavalry at left wing facing two prong attacks, from front and at rear. African cavalry in action.

1

• Roman cavalry completely routed from the field. Roman infantry traped in the horse shoe like formation of carthagian army african infantry encircled the romans flanks and carthagian cavalry attacked roman infantry at the rear, thus completely encircling the romans army.

Mohammad Adil (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

poss spear hoax

Hi Wandalstouring, user:the ed17 suggested you might be able to help on an edgy query. I've just prodded a probable hoax and then looked through the authors other edits I came upon Lajinaa, a spear from circa 1800. Googling it gets several Wikipedia derived refs plus stuff about a Spanish spear shaped knife or paring knife.. Any thoughts? PS re Massachusetts & the EU, you'd be very welcome, provided you learn that Tea is best not made with harbourfulls of cold salt water.. ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tacfarinas & Bastarnae

I have now dealt with your fact tags in Bastarnae. Will you nominate the latter and Tacfarinas for GA class? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please do this? The instructions look complex and you know your way around. EraNavigator (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review

Hi, Wandalstouring. I don't want to be a pest, but I was wondering if you had any more comments/suggestions for Moltke class battlecruiser, which you had reviewed for GA last week. I think I've addressed your concerns, but I wanted to make sure. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No intent to make changes.

I do not intend to make any major textual or layout changes. Each assertion in the article has a source, or even two to back it up. The article is better now due to the GA review (even if it is not GA material in your opinion, it's certainly better for having the review.) Though I fear Jokestress will never be happy with any article that does not cater to her point of view. She alleges and asserts things about me which have no basis in fact. The closest I come to having a COI is that I live in Chicago, and have met many of the people associated with the book, "The Man Who Would Be Queen." That's it, that's all. My personal opinion of this term is that it's main drawback is that people who are not familliar with it can be confused by it. My basic point is I am not planning any structural or major textual changes at this time. --Hfarmer (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mietinen Young

Sorry to step on your process, I interpreted your edit as removing the prod, which imo should have led to the article death in a few days had it stayed. As it happens, I've moved it to AFD, so events will proceed apace. It has no redeeming features, nothing in the history of Arctic exploration supports it and no sources are readily available. It's just someone having some fun, using the names of their next-door neighbours. I'll be quite pleased to be proven wrong! Franamax (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: your message on HSTS

I will try to work on the style in those sentences a bit and make them less repetitive. It will be hard to do that without introducing real or implied bias. i.e. I have to be careful to differentiate between, the hypothsizeing of the researchers, their actual research findings, and their pure unscientific opinion. But when to do what? You see to Jokestress if I were to write about the criticism as the unscientific more emotional opinions they are...I would be introducing bias because to her science is something special... almost magical it seems. To say something is scientific, to her seems to be to say it's fact.

You wrote that you do not understand the statement about erotic pleasure from cross dressing. You wrote that it seems they all cross dress.... That is true. The idea is that homosexual crossderssers... called drag queens in order to distinguish them from heterosexual crossdressers...cannot be sexually attracted to feminine things. Afterall they are sexually attracted to men and masculinity. What Blanchard asserts is that male transgenderism is on a spectrum from non TG to CD's DQ's and finally transsexuals. What he asserts beyond that and with great controversy is that there are really two spectra.

homosexual (Kinsey scale 5-6) males to drag queens to homosexual transsexuals.

non-homosexual males (straight, bissexual, Kinsey scale 0-4) to crossdresser (see Transvestic fetishism) to autogynephilic transsexual.

Now you can see what the real beef is. It is not the term homosexual transsexual so much, but the association to autogynephilia, and fetishism. Most activist only pay faint token lipservice to the idea that the label homosexual transsexual is insulting. Jokestress is the only one I think actually gives a damm about the insult and injury that many straight transwomen could feel due to being called "homosexual transsexuals".

Much has been said by her about what I think... I myself have been attracted to men all my life. My sexual history includes two one time stands with women and more than 100 times more sex with men. (5.9 or so on the Kinsey scale.) I was a feminine boy. When I did meet J. Michel Bailey here in Chicago a few years before the publication of The Man Who Would be Queen the character and content of our few converstions convince me he thought of me as a homosexual transsexual. (I have also just by happenstance met the people he wrote about, one is a professor at a univ I attended, the others are people I have encountered in various social situations through the years. I have no real favorites and as far as I can tell am on good terms with most if not all of them.) This all makes me think if the TS population were divided into non-homosexual and homosexual transsexuals I would be listed as a homosexual transsexual. That said I really don't put allot of stock in psychology. I personally find a neurophysical + social explanation more appealing. I think that all transsexuals have some parts of the brain that are feminized, perhaps the parts are different between homosexual and non-homosexual transsexual. That is what I really think.

I know TLDR, I made this as short as I could.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bastarnae

Check out new Ultimate Fate section of Bastarnae. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for your support for me in the Military History coordinator elections. I am honored that I was elected to my new position of assistant coordinator, and hope that I am able to satisfactorily perform the tasks required of a coordinator. – Joe N 01:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Milhist Coordinator elections
		I wish to thank you for your gracious support during my bid for a position as Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject in the recent March 2009 elections. I was initially apprehensive to stand for election as I was unsure on how well I would be received, but I am pleasantly surprised and delighted to have been deemed worthy to represent my peers within the project. I assure and promise you, I will strive to do my upmost to justify your trust in myself with this esteemed position. Thank you, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Soldiers of the 4th Australian Division crossing a duckboard track through Chateau Wood, Ypres on 29 October 1917.

Glenmama GA review

I have expanded on the sources section so that it discusses the annals in sufficient detail. I should be able to get a start on the archaeology of the site by the end of the week. You can e-mail me at Special:EmailUser/Grimhelm as necessary. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lajinaa

Hi. The Mietinen Young AfD led me to look at Canhistor (talk · contribs)'s other contribution, which I have dug into and taken to AfD here. I saw you had asked him for sources, but as he only ever edited on two days in Nov 2007, we probably shouldn't hold our breath waiting for a response. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

	I seem to have drawn a crowd of support!
	I'm honored to have been elected as a coordinator of the WikiProject Military history and most sincerely thank you for your vote of support. I will endeavor to fulfill the obligations in a manner worthy of your trust. Many thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
	A World War I U-boat draws a crowd after grounding on the Falmouth coast in 1921.

Re: Jokestress

Is it absolutely necessary to satisfy her every complaint inorder for this to be a good article? You ask her for a criticism section and what does she give you? A well referenced thoughtful and neutral few paragraphs smartly summarizing the criticism? Or a self aggrandizing, self serving criticism section where she cast herself as the "voice of all transsexuals". Ignoreing those who don't object to the terms, she also ignored those who did, but for different philosophical reasons than her. Her purpose seemed to be to throw that up just so as to delay the article possibly having anything positive said about it (i.e. that it's merely stable) let alone declared "good". Which I understand is not guaranteed. At what point can we just say OK she is COI'd, and a tenditious editor to the point where we give her words the weight of a grain of salt, and proceeed with actual improvements to the article? At what point do we start to ignore most of what she says on this, which for her is a emotional topic?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You see how she operates. She asserts that anyone who would disagree with her is a faker and a wannabe. You can look at my Youtube Video's and judge that for yourself. Even if her assertions were published by some one some where so what? What basis is she using to make those assertions's? It's like taking an OpED in a news paper and using it as a reliable source of facts. I am not made of stone. How many insults and how much run around must I endure? --Hfarmer (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I take the issue personally. Google my name Hontas Farmer. Then look at the search results two or three down. Her and her cohorts have done a so called investigation and "reveleaed me as a fake" or whatever. They made this personal. not me. I would give you the link bu I don't want to give that website any more traffic than it deserves.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it you saw what I meant. Her and her "side" in this brook no dissent. I am not the one that made this personal they did. The reason I don't take it personal is because I know that psychologist theorizing this or that does not define me. I have just be lucky in that so far anyone who mattered could see through that nonsense.--Hfarmer (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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) 06:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Grindcore

Hi, thanks for the heads up. You should probably talk with Aryder779 (talk) too - he is currently more invested than I am in editing the Grindcore article. Cheers. Musicaindustrial (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really glad you've begun the grindcore page review. I've posted my initial responses; I'm working on sound files and on cleaning up the legacy section. Aryder779 (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some upgrades to the grindcore page. What do you think? Aryder779 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You suggested that I add sound files. I said that I was concerned about copyright issues, and that a file had previously been added that was deleted for inadequate rationale, and that as a result I was wary. You then assured me that with external links copyright was not an issue, and that Youtube was a good source. Red Pen of Doom reverted my edits, but you assured me that this could be dealt with, and that I should restore the links (though I guess this second time you said something about copyright). Now you're saying that there's a copyright problem. Grindcore songs are all copyrighted, as far as I know. There is no public domain grindcore of which I'm aware. It's recorded by bands who want to be credited for their creativity and possibly paid. So I think I can say with some confidence that is impossible to add grindcore sound files that do not rely on copyrighted material; the blast beat we can get away with because it's not really a song and it seems to have been recorded anonymously. I thought maybe linking outside Wikipedia would work around the problem, but I guess that's not the case. I think the article is as good as it can be without violating copyright or Wikipedia guidelines with regard to WP:SYN or WP:NOR.

Do you understand the difficulty?

Thank you for your help with this article. Aryder779 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a new external video link which is apparently authorized by the copyright holder, though I'm still familiarizing myself with these rules. I've also added a response to your concern about Napalm Death still being active. Aryder779 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- I think I've incorporated or responded to your suggestions, as well as some others made by Lyckantrop. I also added another authorized video link. Are there any other improvements you'd like to suggest? Aryder779 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I eliminated the dead links you identified, and added a note to the RIAA database noting the necessity of using the search field (this seems to be the only way to view the information). Are there still problems remaining? Aryder779 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve the article from here. Aryder779 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian obsession with Alexander

After this futile conversation first on whether Alexander ever set foot on India, then on whether he conquered Porus, then on whether all the Graeco Roman writers were imaginative bards and hagioraphers, I started checking articles on Alexander. Starting with the battle of the Hydaspes, the article was full of these pro-Indian theories and interpretations, even presenting dubious sources, you should check too. Every possible effort has been given to minimize Alexander's exploits in favor of his enemies. Casulaties on the side of the Greeks were even presented tenfold, through a careful misquote of a very dubious source, which seems to just be some random blogger!!! I rewrote a freat bulk of Hydaspes, practically cutting away the speculations and misquotes and presenting things as Arrian, Diodorus and Plutarch did. Just look at the article abbout Alexaner himself and you will see selective quotes that are obviously inserted with the sole reason to interpret Alexadner's retreat to Babylon in a way that will make them feel better about themselves. However, I have not meddled with the main article as yet. Please, see to this too, since I suspect that we will have to rewrite pieces on Alexander... GK1973 (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Quinquereme proposal

Guten Tag Wandalstouring! I have been engaged in expanding the Quinquereme, and since you are one of the editors most involved with it in the past, I'd like your opinion on the following idea: since the information we have on ships of this class is inherently limited, and most of what applies to the quinquereme also applies to the other polyremes (fours, sixes, etc.) perhaps it would be better to move the page to a title like "polyremes" and include all of them there. What do you think? Constantine ✍ 12:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps "Hellenistic warships" would be a better title, as it would allow as to encompass the Hemioliai, the Trihemioliai and the lemboi that do not fit in the "polyreme" definition... On the other hand, "Hellenistic" as a term is associated less with Rome and Carthage, although most of these ships did indeed originate in Greek states... What do you think? Constantine ✍ 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case, you should have been clearer. As it was, I perceived an implicit approval. Of course I will add more information, I most emphatically dis not intend to leave it like that and just change the title! Be a bit patient please... Constantine ✍ 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you know, initially I also preferred the term "polyremes", but the problem is a) that fours and fives are sometimes not included under that category, and b) that, as stated, it leaves the lighter vessels out, and it doesn't really make sense to have two or more separate articles given the paucity of details, when dealing with ships that were part of the same technological tree and maritime culture. As for the term "Hellenistic" I understand your concern, however it is the only term that can actually be used to describe the whole era covered. Although Rome and Carthage were not culturally or politically "Hellenistic", they shared many aspects, esp. in warfare, with the East. I was actually persuaded to use the title when I saw that Morrison himself uses the term in his chapter. As for "coverage", the quinquereme was used in the East as well, and the Punic peculiarities in shipbuilding are, I think, already mentioned (more is to come). As for Carthage and Rome, there will be more info in tactics & weapons... If you don't like the term "Hellenistic" (and I can very well understand why) is there perhaps another adjective we could use? Because "polyremes" too is problematic... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 13:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

*That* Hannibal coin

Thought it polite to mention that I raised you name at Talk:Hannibal. Tried to reason with him about the coin. Don't know if it'll succeed....Catiline63 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Alexander

Hi,

Since Im not feeling too well, and since I dont have the resources, I have placed your request here. I hope it helps. AshLin (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

I have left an opinion at the GA3 page. Clearly there is an ongoing dispute here so you should fail the current nomination. When some stability returns the editors can re-nominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi - it doesn't matter who is right or wrong - an ongoing dispute and edit-warring are one of the quick fail criteria. It is only GA review. Nobody is going to die! Perhaps the failure will lead to some sort of resolution. I would suggest that they try mediation. As a reviewer you don't need to get involved. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have renominated this article. This is a article about a controversial issue a controversy that you know predates wikipedia, exist off wikipedia, and will likley go on if wikipedia ceased to exist. There will never be total agreement. Is that really what it takes to make a good article? As for the last edit that this Jezhotwells cited, ammounted to changing one word, "psychology".--Hfarmer (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Auxilia

Check out revamped Alpine regiments of the Roman auxilia. I intend to use this format, based on the geographical/ethnic origin of the units, to cover all the auxiliary regiments: with 15-20 regiments per article, some 20 articles should suffice to cover the auxilia. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hannibal

As a member of WP:MILHIST, I am quite familiar with the projet's assessment guidelines. And, I was of the opinion that this article does meet the requirements of being a B-Class article. However, after reading and re-reading the article numerous times, I now realize that you are correct and that this article should only be Start-Class. Thank you for showing me the error of my previous thinking. Cheers! --Laurinavicius (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

P. Mattar

Hello Wandalstouring,
The full reference of the book is : P. Mattar, The Mufti of Jérusalem, Al-Hajj Amin al-Husayni and thé Palestinian National Movement, New York, Columbia University Press, 1988.
Thank you for your help ! Ceedjee (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpine regiments

Check out revamped and corrected "Alpine peoples of the Roman Empire" section of Alpine regiments of the Roman auxilia, with your fact tags dealt with (save one - I'm still looking for a Romansh ref). Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dt23 is Back

Since you were among the last he talked to I thought you should one of the first to know. He was injured in combat and sent to Fort Bragg. Me and him served together in Iraq a few years back and we are still friends. He is a senior officer so he gets to have computer access there and he just emailed me to tell me that he is asking the admin that he asked to block him to unblock him.--Sharpterov (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with de Wiki translation

Hi Wandal,

Can you take a peek at Carl Raswan and compare it to its source, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Raswan ? My German consists of a year I studied it in 1987 and so I largely relied on Babelfish and what I know of English language conventions for horse vocabulary ("Asil" Arabians are those that are desert bred, i.e. of the purest bloodlines, which in English are "purebred," not "thoroughbred," etc...). There were some things that I skipped because they just didn't translate for me, but probably contained nuances I totally missed. Anyway, I tried to do a straight translation so if you can do a comparison and fix anything I misinterpreted, I'd be EVER so grateful! Thanks (Danke)! Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for touching bases with me Wandal. Here are a couple places where Google utterly failed to be of any help:

"Seine Schulferien verbrachte Carl Raswan mit seinem Pony häufig bei seinem Onkel Bernhard Schmidt, der im Forsthaus Kreyern im Spitzgrund die Position des Oberforstrates einnahm. Bei einem dieser Ferienaufenthalte beobachtete Carl Raswan den jungen Prinzen Ernst-Heinrich von Wettin, der mit seinem, vom Ungarischen König erworbenen, arabischen Schimmel in den Moritzburger Schlossteich ritt. Der Schimmel war vermutlich ein Shagya-Araber und Carl Raswan beobachtete, wie das Pferd sich selber in dem Spiegelbild im Wasser erkannte und damit spielte. Dieses Erlebnis wecke sein Interesse für das arabische Pferd und wurde somit zum Schlüsselerlebnis für das weitere Leben von Carl Raswan."

I got that he rode his pony in the woods with his Uncle, but the details of the Uncle's position did not clearly translate. I also got that he saw one of his first Arabians when seeing a Shagya Arabian ridden by the prince, but the horse did something related to seeing its reflection in a pond, but I couldn't figure out what. So help understanding this bit would be much appreciated.

I also didn't get this bit on the end of his service in WWI: "Auf dem Weg in die Heimat erlebte Raswan in Warschau die Oktoberrevolution bevor er 1918 durch die Entbehrungen völlig abgemagert in Dresden angelangte." Got that he somehow wound up in Warsaw at the time of the October Revolution, but it seems he was more than just starving...?

Finally, I couldn't figure out what the eight-year problem that he had with publication of the book Sons of the Desert: "Seit Ende der 1930er Jahre unterhielt Carl Raswan ein kleines Gestüt in den Sandia-Bergen in Neu-Mexiko (USA) auf dem er arabische Vollblüter züchtete. Im Verlauf des Zweiten Weltkriegs begann Raswan mit der Ordnung seiner Aufzeichnungnen um diese zu publizieren. Hieraus entstand u.a. das Buch „Söhne der Wüste“. Die Ordnung dieser Aufzeichnungen dauerte mehr als acht Jahre."

Thanks again. Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful and much appreciated. Feel free to further shred the translation at Talk:Carl Raswan. I'll correct any other factual errors you spot, or you can just fix them directly. All I did so far was to port over the article, much cleanup obviously needed. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2

Since you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fountain of Time, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Alpine regiments

Check out and please grade the completed version of Alpine regiments of the Roman army. Also I need your assistance with a tidying-up exercise regarding these regiments. I originally started producing articles on each regiment, until I concluded that there was not sufficient data to justify separate articles. Then I lumped them together under a common name such as Alpinorum regiments, but even this didn't really work. So now I have produced this article grouping the regiments by broad geographical region (which I intend to do for the other regions too).

So we now need to delete the following articles (of which I am the sole author), whose data has been integrated into Alpine regiments of the Roman army:

• Alpinorum auxiliary regiments
• Cohors I Alpinorum equitata
• Cohors I Alpinorum peditata
• Cohors II Alpinorum equitata
• Cohors III Alpinorum equitata
• Cohors I Raetorum
• Cohors I Raetorum equitata
• Cohors I Raetorum equitata c.R.

Can I leave this in your capable hands? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Glenmama

Are you going to finish reviewing this? Looks like there's been no action on either side since the end of March. Wizardman 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Same for Grindcore, nothing since the end of April. Wizardman 16:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Grindcore GA Nomination

Hey, how are doing? How's the grindcore article doing? Will it reached GA status soon? Thanks. Musicaindustrial (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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) 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Strasbourg

Hi, Wandalstouring. You don't seem to have responded to my last missive, on Alpine regiments of the Roman army, above. Are you busy with exams or something? Anyway, when you have some time, I would be grateful if you could grade this article. In addition, are you aware that User SADADS is planning to reorganise Battle of Strasbourg, and says he also wants to do the same for Late Roman army? I would be grateful if you could keep a close eye on his activities so that he does not end up wrecking these articles. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Can do. What are your thoughts on those changes by-the-by? The suggestions can be found on EraNavigator's talk and the discussion for the page. I am just thinking about readability and completely agree with the validity of the article, which he is debating through evidence such as it's rating and inclusion in the CD Wikipedia. Neither of these warrant a defense without input on the possible changes of the article. Unfortunately EraNavigator seems not to be thinking about the idea's that policy seem to point at. Thank's much for your third party input, could I hear what you think before I begin investing my time in the work. Best Regards SADADS (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the typos in the last, ugh, I am writing too fast sometimes. (I fixed them) I am going to create two sandboxes, the first will be User:Sadads/Draft Strasbourg and the second User:Sadads/Draft Gallic Julian Campaign. I will start doing some work in this space at the end of the week probably. SADADS (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alpine regiments

Hi, Wandalstouring. I notice that you haven't graded Alpine regiments of the Roman army or arranged for the deletion of the related articles that I listed above? Is this due to lack of available time or is this article not up to B standard for some reason? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Published

The translation I have doesn't say the image we are talking about was published. The only reference(?) it has is Photo: kheirkhah.ir / Reuters. This afaik means that the rights for the picture belong to kheirkhah.ir not that it was published there. I was not able to find anything on Reuters about the picture. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the picture was published by the newspaper just because it exists in its directory. We need a source saying that it did, otherwise we are doing original research, that is we make our own conclusions instead of reading third party sources. I understand your concerns, but although the photo exists all over the internet we must be sure about our sources, conclusions etc. Under the circumstances in Iran are hard and maybe it's hard for some to not express their feelings, this is why we must be very careful about our sources and double check that they are reliable, accurate in what we use them and independent.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So, because the sample has the same layout, you make the conclusion that its the first page. No one says "that was the first page". But if you look WP:Sources that is not what wikipedia requires and thinks as reliable. Wikipedia requires to find something which writes "that was published in that newspaper" and it is against making our own conclusions based on material we acquire (such as the screenshot). I know you probably think "ah its common logic" but wikipedia is very specific on that matter. Otherwise everyone would make "common logic" conclusions and we'll end up on documenting personal opinions instead objective views.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you another example from that article: Another user in that article added a source about the attacks on ISPs. The sentence said that attacks on iranian ISPs caused the internet to be off. This sentence means that the service providers had so much traffic that they (the providers) couldn't serve the people (because the attacks cause traffic). But a user concluded that because of the attacks the iranian government stopped the internet and added a source for that. These are entirely different things, although they both speak about the internet going off, the user made a mistake because he/she made a conclusion. The source was ok for another point in the article, which was about the government stopping internet access after the attacks. That is why wikipedia doesn't accept conclusions about sources, because we end up on opinions instead of facts.--81.103.162.59 (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to make your cause clear with one sentence or keep off my talk page. I'm too busy to read you stuff. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Iran

		The Original Barnstar
		from a reader who has watched you work tirelessly all day, and contribute significantly. You very much deserve this! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Kayhan

Hi, The date on the newspaper reads (yek Shanbeh, 24 Khordad 1388)=(June, 14 2009). The newspaper is evening newspaper. Regards.--Xashaiar (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

BE MORE POLITE

I hope that makes it perfectly clear that you must be civil whenever making an entry on anybody's talk page. It's common knowledge that using all caps is similar to shouting and therefore very impolite. I removed your comment from my talk page because it's rude. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet sources

Hello Wandalstouring,

With regards to, for example, Twitter as a source, the answer to the issue already exists within the policies. Reliable sources generally should be secondary sources, as much as possible. For "hot topics" or "breaking stories" such as the Iranian Protests, however, that rule can and occasionally should be ignored. As with all things issues, calm dispassionate evaluation is the best solution.

Anyway, just from looking at your comments and the amount of attention that you seem to be focusing your editing attention upon, I'm a bit worried that you may be getting caught up. If you're feeling emotional about things (which, just from my very limited observation you probably are) then it's probably a good idea to take a step back for a bit. The article will be fine, it's not going anywhere, and there are plenty of other editors (and, believe it or not, plenty who share your viewpoints!). So, relax, edit something else for a while (or nothing at all), and come back to the article after a short break.

Regards
— Ω (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews April to June 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal.  Roger Davies talk 12:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you help with a COI

I am significantly editing the page International Foundation for Electoral Systems and I have a Conflict of Interest, could you look at what I have done and help me figure out if it I have anything that is not NPoV. Thank you for the help in the past and I hope you can help. Thanks much SADADS (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am away most of the week but I will make those changes come the weekends. SADADS (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the article again for bias and maybe assessing it? Thanks much for all of your help.SADADS (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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) 02:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Greco-Persian Wars

That's fine by me. It's already been waiting for review for a long time, so another month won't hurt. Plus, I will also be busy over the next few months, so a slow review suits me.

In addition, I would rather the article was reviewed by someone who I know will do a thorough review, and who cares about the subject.

Thanks in advance for reviewing this! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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) 21:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

battle maps

hi, i use to create them using window xp's "paint"..... the maps of battle of yarmouk, i created using paint only. But they were (as u can compare them with battle of zama's map) were of low quality. I Then download a program called "inkscape" and believe me i have became a fan of that software, it uses vector graphics which have unlimited zoom and picture never breaks no matter how much u zoom in, it help u to create very define images. the most recent maps that i have created is that of battle of zama, but unfortunately i still haven't got time to work on that battle and paste those maps on the article with some battle descriptions. As for inkscape u can download it, its free search on google. and as for the how to create maps on it, one gotta have some "painting" skills, a concept, a perception, and a lot of time !. I learn using inkscape from video tutorials available on youtube and i would recommend that one should go there and check those videos. And finally you will learn it when u will use it ......

feel free to ask more

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• actually what i do is quite strange.... and i wounder if i will be able to make u understand how i make them..... let me try

before drawing any particular map i have its image

in my mind already.... then i just open window paint and inkscape. first i draw the plain,

with all details including the info box at the upper left corner of the map then i save it,

let it be pic1. after this i open a new page in inkscape and draw armies. we in maps

represent armies with long blocks. If you star drawing these blocks in inkscape using simple

ruler u gonna end up with nothing ! so wht i have invented is a trick to make these blocks.

i simple draw a straight line using a pencil or ruler of desired length and then i go to its

properties and increase its "width" untill i get the desired width for that army whether its

infantry or cavalry. then i save it as well, let it be pic2. now open copy of pic1 in paint, save it as well and let it be pic3 (keep the original

untouch u may need it later), then open pic2 and zoom it in to adjust the size and then

"print screen" it, paste that print screen in another window piant and from there cut the

image of those infantry lines and cavalry lines and simply paste them in pic3 and save the

image in png format. you now have a raw battle map in pic3. using this pic3 as a base just

copy it and paste it to have "copypic3" (always keep original untouched !). As In paint you can

move the infantry lines and blocks easily just by selecting them by mouse, therefore i prefer

to use paint while giving final touch to the maps. when u are finish making 1st map, copy

that map and then edit it to make 2nd map, and similarly copy that 2nd map to make from it

the 3rd map, it will help u making a well balanced series of battle maps.

You can draw arrows ( that indicate maneuver of corps) from inkscape and then print screen

them and paste them in your battle map to easily adjust them according to desired position.

you can also do all this in inkscape and there will be no need for this "print screen"

stuff, the method that i have mentioned above is the one that i use, as inkscape is a heavy

software and it often hangs ur pc, so therefore to save my time i print screen images from

it to paste them in paint which is quite light and quicker software of window xp.

following r the 2 link to the video from which i learn the bases of using inkscape.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKttdNa8RTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7brq6GjaSk

they are not related to map making but they will certainly help u in understand the functions of inkscape.

i have no idea whether u have understood the method that i have mentioned above, actually

its quite difficult to learn some thing "non-verbal" through reading so i suggest u n all

those who are interested in drawing maps to just try making it "practically" because "necessity is the mother of invention" n once u will use inkscape u will evolve your own

methods, and its not difficult making them, trust me ! but yes its time consuming.

as for the research for those battle maps, yes u can search it on Google, whether u will get

some raw battle maps or will get some really good descriptions of the battle, by reading

those description, with a little understanding of maneuvers of armies u

will be able to create a very good map. and one thing that i keep in my mind while making

maps is that the good map is one which is "understandable" to all alike, even if a layman

who dont know any thing about battle, will see them, he must be able to quickly understand

that wht happned in that battle, which side maneuvered how and wht was the battle plan etc

etc .... thats the bottom line of map making.

its been a long time when u gave me list of some battles that need maps, so far i have just made map for one battle and that battle of zama, actually this battle impressed me so much that i couldnt help myself but to make its map though i am having a bit of a busy routine. Inshallah after i am done with improving battle of zama's article which is in quite a bad shape, a reader will never understand that what actually happaned in the battle and how it happned, using which strategy and tactics etc etc .... ! after that battle i will go for other battles too inshallah in late october. is there any other battle that u want me to make maps ? feel free to tell me, in late october when i will be in my "full form" to work on wikipedia, i will make them quickly.

regards...

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

re:Take a look

Ping!  Roger Davies ^talk 12:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)