User talk:Jacob Haller

This user left Wikipedia. Jacob Haller has not edited Wikipedia since November 12, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Communism . For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

The correct usage is {{fact}} which produces:

^{[citation needed]}

Not [[fact]]. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Seeing your comments on

]

WP:MILHIST

Coordinator Elections

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

Delivered by grafikbot 10:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delivered by grafikbot 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I saw that you were working on the

article. I have a couple of tips for you since you seem fairly new:

• Jordanes entire "Origins and Deeds of the Goths" is online here, you could use that as a source for some more information.
• The article seems to be new and created by yourself. There's nothing wrong with that but you need to consider how you can tie it in with the rest of the articles on wikipedia. One of wikipedia's best features is that you can hop from one article to another via wikilinks. At the moment nothing much links to Gothic armies, you need to try and find its place in wikipedia's existing articles and put links in to it. The most obvious place to link from would be
  Gothic armies
  . At present, people are unlikely to find your article.
• I think you need to discuss the formation of the Gothic armies, their typical military units, how they were armed, etc.
• "Wulfila's bible translation often describes the 1st Century Roman army in 4th Century Gothic terms." - I'm not sure that this whole section is really relevant - the article should be about Gothic armies, not Roman ones.

Thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

Delivered by grafikbot 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, as you can hopefully appreciate with an article of this size with this many sources, trawling through all my references searching for a cite for the sentences you have flagged as needing cites would be something of a massive undertaking and not one I have time for at the moment. Would it be satisfactory to simply substitute "Goths" for "Visigoths" in the disputed sentences? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had recently moved Visigoth to Visigoths and was sorting though the links (still several hundred to go) hence my quick fact-tagging without much more. Yes, substituting Goths for Visigoths should do nicely. Thanks. Jacob Haller 06:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you mark POV issues, please indicate on the Talk page what exactly the issues are, as specified by the POV tag. I believe I have addressed your issues, but can't be sure. --Macrakis 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on the

]

I disagree with this page creation. The issue you have raised is not valid, since pages covering these topics already exist at Strategy of the Roman military and Roman infantry tactics, for example - both linked in the main Roman military navbar at the top of each page. By creating this page, you are duplicating work from other articles and over-populating the category of articles on the Roman military - all the content in this article that you have created is already available in other articles. Th existing article structure is thematic (each article covers a different theme) with sections within each article covering each period - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob, I see that you have made widespread edits to this article last night. I have unfortunately felt it necessary to revert much of your work. My reasons for doing this are:

• You greatly altered the structure of the article, introducing sections that are contrary tot he article's title and are covered more properly in other, existing articles [1] [2]
• You removed cited quotes [3]
• The article is currently undergoing peer review, as noted on the talk page, and such widespreadh changes to an article are not helpful during such a process, which needs some article stability in order for comments made int he peer review to be useful [4]
• As per your comments at Talk:Military of ancient Rome, I'm not sure that you have fully explored or understood the existing structure of articles on ancient Rome and where certain content is most relevant.

Please get in contact before performing any more such radical article overhauls on an article that is under development by another editor and in the peer review process. Thanks! - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going back over your edits, re-adding in all the content you added that is relevant to the article, but maintaining the existing structure - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I can't make heads or tails of the Roman Army article structure. Jacob Haller 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the substantial issues ... I read the article and found it often contradicted the most recent scholarship. I removed one quote because I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to mean. Jacob Haller 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob, there is no need to create an entire parallel structure for the late Roman military, when a structure is already in place for the entire Roman military. Stop making edits for a second and take a step back. The structure of the articles is very simple - it is thematic. There is an article on the Structural history (how the structure of the army changed over time), one on the campign history (the battles they fought in), one on the technological history (weapons development etc), political history, one on the strategy, one on the Roman military personal equipment, and one on the tactics. All the edits you have made can be fitted into one of these articles, there is no need to create an entire parallel structure for the late roman military you are interested in. All aspects of the late roman military are aspects of the changing face of the roman military as a whole, and should be fitted into the pre-existing articles on these subjects. For example, you were adding content to the Structural history of the Roman military on weapons and tactics - these already have existing articles, in this case technological history and tactics. If they currently cover only the weapons and tactics of the early empire, then they should simply be expanded to include information on the late empire too. This is a problem with a lot of articles on the Roman military, that there is a focus currently on early empire only, which is not representative of the entire roman military history.

What I am trying to say is please try and understand the existing structure and where the edits you are making should be fitting into that. You say "I have other articles which need to reference the Late Roman military (including its organization, tactics, equipment, campaigns, etc.)" - what you should do in each case is create a section by date in the relevant structural, tactics, equipment etc article and link to that section - you don't need to create brand new articles for all of these. For example, structural and campaign history already have sections on the late empire you can link to, and if the tactics, equipment, etc etc articles do not, then you need to create new sections in them for the late empire to indicate the differences. Having to link to sections within articles is perfectly standard and is not indicative that an entire new parallel article structure needs to be set up

You also say "I have had to write extensive sections on Roman military equipment". Why? There is already an article called Roman military personal equipment that should hold all this information. If it doesn't, then add it. Again, there are correct places for all this info you're adding, but you are currently duplicating a lot of work and ignoring the existing article structure.

I understand exactly where your frustration is coming from - it is true that some of the articles cover the entire roman military period and some cover only the early empire. This is not deliberate, it is a legacy issue that is due to a lot of the early editors begin interested primarily in the early empire, and writing articles as if this was representative of the entire roman military. In more recent articles, I and several other editors have restructured several of the articles to include information right from 800BC to 476 AD. However, some articles that we haven't got around to yet still focus only or predominantly on the early empire (the classic legions everyone is familiar with). This is not because this is how these articles should be, but because that's how they have been historically, and haven't been worked on since. If an article claims to be on Topic X for the entire roman military, but only holds info on the early empire, don't create a duplicate article just for the late empire, populate the existing article with info on the late empire too, and make clear when the changes occured and why.

If you carry on in the direciton you have been, we are going to end up with a very confusing mix of some articles on the entire period of the roman military, some on the late, and some on the early. It is far easier to comprehend as a structure (and would require far less reworking of existing articles) to continue the practice of assigning the scope of the entire roman military period from 800BC to 476 AD to each article, and editing it accordingly.

To sumamrise: if an article claims to be on "Roman military equipment" but only has info on early imperial roman military equipment, don't create another article called "late roman military equipment", just split the existing article into sections "republic military equipmetn", "early imperial military equipment", "late imperial military equipment" etc.

Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I started the article Gothic and Vandal warfare (originally Gothic armies), initially to support Battle of Adrianople. The article clearly needs to refer to Roman warfare and the Roman military. However, while it may need to refer to the Roman military from the 230s to the 550s it doesn't need to refer to the Roman military of the early Republic, etc, etc. Many battle articles might need to refer to Roman military organization in their period (i.e. the structural history article), tactics of the period (tactics), weapons (which might go in tactics, in technology (which currently focuses on civil engineering and siege warfare), or in personal equipment), etc. I'm sorry about screwing with the peer review process. Jacob Haller 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd point to Byzantine army as a period-based subdivision of Roman military history. Jacob Haller 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Jacob, no probs with the peer review process, perhaps it wasn't obvious from the article that it was ongoing. I understand exactly what you are saying, but it should be possible to simply link to the relevant period sections of the existing articles on each topic. I do see the difficulty in that you want to link to an article summarising all aspects of one period, but think of the reverse - if it was sorted by date and you wanted to look at roman military tactics, you would have to again look at lots of sections of different (by period) articles. I'm not sure there is a solution really, since it doesn't make sense in my view to duplicate everything into both by-theme and by-period articles - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts in bringing Category:Heresy to a successful CfD. I've long thought the category needed to be removed; and now, thanks to you, it has been. Kudos! SwissCelt 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If you want Ostrogoths deleted, will you please: a) place the db tag before the redirect statement and b) state what move you want carried out! "WTF? rv" is meaningless. -- RHaworth 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was just following the instructions for requesting deletion to move the page. I wasn't sure where to explain the reason. Jacob Haller 15:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but note that the same two editors who are refusing to allow Libertarian Socialism to be restored to featured article status, given that it was improperly removed in the first place, are also the ones who insisted that "all is well and good" despite numerous problems concerning the featured article status of anarcho-capitalism. I'm happy to work on libertarian socialism as long as it takes to make it a worthy article, but how am I supposed to know what will be considered worthy in the eyes of individuals seemingly biased against it? Etcetc 16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic unexplained reversions are for dealing with vandalism and nothing else. If you continue to use them in editing disputes rather than actually explaining your actions with proper edit summaries, you will lose your ability to use them, or maybe just end up blocked, depending on the severity. See, on this article, I explained my edit and you didn't explain yours. Article writing isn't about revert-warring, it's about discussing and compromising. --Cyde Weys 18:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasons in the 2nd edit. It does no good to explain my reasons in both. Jacob Haller 18:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A

) 22:52, 10 June 2007

anarcho-collectivism

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but unless the source specifically mentions Bakunin's collectivism it's not a real source. I have a hard time seeing why an anarcho-syndicalists would support anarcho-collectivism. That's like saying some mutualists support anarcho-capitalism, or something like that. Anarcho-syndicalists are not anarcho-collectivists. That's why they have their own title, otherwise they would be anarcho-collectivists. Illegal editor 18:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous objection was that anarcho-syndicalists oppose wages, anarcho-collectivism uses wages, ergo anarcho-syndicalism is not compatible with anarcho-collectivism. The source refutes your argument. Jacob Haller 19:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one objection, because the definition in the article said that anarcho-syndicalists want to abolish wages. That's a major reason why I couldn't fathom why anarcho-syndicalism would support anarcho-collectivism. I was just trying to get you or anyone else, to realize that something is off. But, even if anarcho-syndicalists do support wage labor that doesn't mean they support anarcho-collectivism, which is more than just that. It's also a revolutionary philosophy that advocates violence to destroy the present system. Collectivist anarchism spefically refers to the Bakunin and his followers. I believe the collectivists also supported the use of labor checks. Do anarcho-syndicalists discuss that? There are different names for different kinds of anarchism for a reason. They're not the same. Anyway, again, the source doesn't mention anarcho-collectivism. Illegal editor 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says anarchosyndicalists want to abolish the wage system, not that anarchosyndicalists want to abolish wages, but requres clarification on that point. I've moved the Chaplin reference to an explanatory footnote to the first statement about the wage system. Is that better? Jacob Haller 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with that. I'm wondering why you changed "private ownership" to "capitalist ownership." I know that the collectivists were against both. I assume you mean non-worker ownership of a means of a production? As in owned by investors? Collectivists were againt that but also against private ownership, meaning individual ownership. Anarcho-syndicalists are opposed to private ownership of the means of production too, I'm pretty sure, not just "capitalist ownership." Illegal editor 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and edit. You wrote:

(Not really notable ... AFAIK, Jane's Naval Wargame and Fletcher Pratt's Naval Wargame did similar stuff decades before, and I know Flying Circus also did so.)

Interesting. thanks for the information. I actually was not aware of that. However, are you sure that is not notable? I'm not trying to dispute you here, I'm really asking. It seems to me that almost no game now incorporates such features, which seems to make SFB unique. I'm not familiar with the two gamnes which you mentioned. Are they still played now? I'm trying to reflect the fact that SFB may be the only one currently played which shows that type of detail.

Also, out of curiosity, re those other games, what did they incorporate? and how did they handle this? sounds interesting. thanks. --Sm8900 15:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm not really into tactical air or tactical naval wargames, but almost all of them include similar plane-by-plane or ship-by-ship detail. Harpoon [tabletop]/Command at Sea is probably slightly more abstract than SFB. It's semi-miniature, using counters and rulers. Flying Circus, Spitfire, Richtofen's War, Air War, Flight Leader, etc. show plane-by-plane detail, with players tracking altitude, damage, and sometimes fuel (Flight Leader) or ammo (Flying Circus, most of the missile-era games). Wooden Ships & Iron Men tracks damage somewhat abstractly and Tobruk 1st Edition tracks damage and ammo for tanks (but not turret position and the other crew-by-crew details. I think there are some solitaire games (B-17, B-29 (?) in playtesting, where the players represents one aircraft crew, and Patton's Best, where the player represents one tank crew, which include even more detail. And on the larger scale, Campaign For North Africa doesn't track individual vehicles but does allow players to reorganize the battalions, transferring subordinate units from one counter to another, training units, reequipping units, etc. as long as the supplies, equipment, and time are available.

I've only played a few of the above. "Degree of detail" might be worth discussing in the article. I think there are basically three approaches; John Hill describes these somewhere: (1) cut out details which slow the game. Basically, small, simple, fast-playing games. (2) don't have many units, but show them in detail. (3) don't have much detail per unit, but include more units. In an operational land game, approach two might involve one unit having multiple counters (for different strengths) as in 1914 or Anzio, while approach (3) would show the next level down (divisions instead of corps, brigades or regiments instead of divisions) with each of the smaller units having only one or two steps. Obviously, games can't break the ship, the plane, or the tank into smaller units, but they can show the ship, plane, or tank in more detail, as in SFB. Thanks. Jacob Haller 16:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the Wikipedia policy or MOS standards for what to include in/exclude from See Also sections. I'm not sure there is one. However, other editors keep adding additional See Also.

My basic position is that if X is relevant to Y, then Y should have a see also link to X; and if X is not relevant to Y, then Y should not have a see also link to X. Others seem to hold that if X is relevant to Y, and Y is not relevant to X, then X and Y should still both have links to each other. Jacob Haller 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also is where the "See also" section is described. It, however, doesn't cover content that much other than that links that are already in the text shouldn't be repeated here. My feeling is that in a perfect world, there would be no "See also" section at all. Everything would be linked within the text. Therefore, my feeling is that if A is relevant to B, but B is not relevant to A, then B shouldn't contain a link to A in a "See also" section. In that case, A probably ought to carry a short explanation for its link to B. Or better, remove them both, and find a way to place the link to A in the text. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The

June 2007 issue

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

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. You put a {{POV}} header at the top of

]

I'm not familiar with the person in question; I found the article in an unrelated search. But labeling anyone a heretic violates

WP:NPOV. Jacob Haller 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I can see that. Do you know if there's been a specific discussion of this issue somewhere? Reading it might help me edit the article to be more NPOV. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was the discussion of Categories for Deletion:Heretics, but I'm not sure how to get to the right archive. It crops up on hundreds of different pages, in one form or another. A quick fix might state that most Jews regard him a a heretic, or his teachings as heretical.

It might help to distinguish between

1. Elisha be Abuyah as a person, i.e. his biography, avoiding direct statements about heresy,
2. and Elisha ben Abuyah as a good bad example in later Judaism, where he has to be "heretical" to be a good bad example, but it doesn't really matter which "heresy" he adopts. Jacob Haller 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the discussions about deleting the Categories of Heresies and Heretics. And I agree about the article; it needs to make clear that later Judaism views him as a heretic, rather than stating as a fact that he was a heretic. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure how to address the issues in detail, but wanted to point them out. Jacob Haller 21:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hallo. Vision Thing thinks I have or may have recruited you from the flag forums for the purpose of meatpuppetry on wikipedia. Respond if you want, link is up there. -- infinity0 19:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you add a major tag to a section, especially something like {{

]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Persecution of Germanic Pagans. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Liftarn 07:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeatedly ignored consensus and turned the disambiguation page into ... whatever that was supposed to be. I have not seen any evidence of continuity or even similarity between the three things listed. I suggest you address your concerns on the pages linked to; if you wish to expand the page as well, I suggest you outline your draft on the talk page, labelling one section for your draft and another section for criticisms. Jacob Haller 07:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this issue to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -Zara1709 08:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

May I ask you to write on the talk page specifications of what exactly should be dubious on marked sentences please ? That would be very helpfull for possible clarification in the future. Thank you. Reo ^ON | +++ 20:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, edited wrong revision, my mistake, writing this here in case you don't catch it on the talk page, which is kinda bloated. -- infinity0 21:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

]

You are misrepresenting the policy. I am following explicit statements in six primary sources. Each of them states that anarchism opposes hierarchical authority. Bakunin goes the farthest in distinguishing different forms of authority. Jacob Haller 17:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the Fomenko article. I was about to do it myself. I really feel that this is Wikipedia's Achilleus heel: fringe theories whose acolytes rally to defend the pages. Have you seen the sorry state of the article on the Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon? They argue for and against its authenticity as if there was any scientific support for the idea that Indians were the descendants of Israelites, with dark skin as punishment for their sins. Ridiciluous.Sponsianus 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vandalising the History of the Balkans. If your understanding is poor, then that is a matter for you to clarify yourself, not attack the article

]

I see no vandalism, but it would be helpful if you explained your edit on the article talk page. --

Ronz 00:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If you are unsure. Refer to explanatin on talk page. Then please feel free to explain your objection more clearly on the discussion page. Also feel free to acquire a dictionary to help acquiant yourself with the meaning of 'permanent'.

]

References for Ukraine after the Russian Revolution

You added a request for references to the article

}} tags which statements need citations, and elsewhere in the article?

I wrote much of the article based on the references at the bottom, and I'm glad to pull them out and add appropriate footnotes. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-08-20 22:48 Z

I don't see any in-line references there. Jacob Haller 22:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stepping on

]

Wow! Thanks for the work you've put in there. I'll see if I can find anything. Jacob Haller 19:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "Suid." was an abbreviation for "Suda." I tracked down several other pages with the same "Suid. s.v. ..." and clarified them to "Suda, under ..." or variations thereof. Jacob Haller 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hated to leave that "Suid" hanging. :) I do appreciate your input. It's very satisfying to see a page improve like that. --Moonriddengirl 19:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know and agree. I'm interested in this and think it warrants a discussion of its own. Why don't you just take a look at the

00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Chaplin and Solidarity Forever

I take your point about the labor theory of property, however I think it is too narrow a concept to cover the claims of the IWW Preamble, and certainly an obscure concept. The labor theory of value is, in my opinion, more the ethical underpinning of the IWW's claim that "all the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone." And the labor theory of value is usually understood in a broader sense (by those who still take it seriously, in the face of mainstream economics' marginal utility theory).

On your question of the reference for Chaplin's return to the Catholic Church, I will make an effort to obtain his actual article itself (and not just the reference to it) from the Denver Post of Feb. 1957 to see whether it does indeed state what I have asserted. If it does, I'll change the reference directly to that. If it doesn't, and I can't find a credible reference, I'll remove the comment. Dwalls 02:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a copy of the Denver Post magazine articles from the Washington State Historical Society. Although elliptical, it strongly implies Chaplin became a Catholic. His story is described as one of, quoting Chaplin, "a violent atheist turned Christian the hard way." Chaplin writes, "I found myself remembering the Catholic chapel at Leavenworth and the inmates who devoutly raised their eyes to my portrait of 'Fellow Worker Jesus.' . . .Here was the instrument of true solidarity, the real clue to Man's salvation, and the best weapon against totalitarianism." There is no suggestion he was a Catholic when younger, so I withdraw the "returned to." Dwalls 17:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jacob Haller 18:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally (four years later!) ran across a reference in print that Chaplin "converted to Roman Catholicism," in John R. Salter, Jr., "Chaplin, Ralph H. (1887-1961)," Encyclopedia of the American Left (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), p. 127. Dwalls (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

My sympathies are with the anti-globalization movements. The inclusion of anti-globalization in the category was not meant as a slur. There is a serious problem with Anti-americanism. I have seen in India how anti-globalization movements are misused by local politicians, stripped of all the globalization awareness, and end up with only hackneyed Anti-american slogans that are beneficial for the agenda of the local party or group. This instrumentalization of the anti-globalization movement has to be analyzed and solutions have to be found so that it doesn't become a same old butt-beater, but a proactive and relevant group. I understand that the category can be misapplied though. My regards,Mohonu 04:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you're following the Anti-Americanism article, I got into a nasty edit war over the characterization of the counter-globalization movement. In my reading, the article characterizes counter-globalization as a whole as a stalking-horse for anti-Americanism. Of course many of us, in the US as well as abroad, see it as an anti-imperial movement, opposing, among others, the government of the US without opposing the people. Perhaps you can help clear this up.

I can't present sources for this first claim, but in my experience, there's strong feedback between the anti-Washington-Consensus counter-globalization concerns and anti-US-Hegemony anti-imperial ones. Opposition to either the Washington Consensus or US Hegemony can lead to opposition to the other. In some cases, yes, people have used such concerns to feed hostility to the American people, or vice-versa. However, the media often associate opposition to the policies of the government with hatred of the people, and certain groups label their opponents "Anti-American," with members of these groups assaulting their opponents. Jacob Haller 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the little bit about Tucker on your user page. It's a nice, concise refutation of anarcho-capitalist claims to dignified roots. Aelffin 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please insert some sources for your entries on Civil War Russian armies? Cheers Buckshot06 08:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. I don't have the main source. I was working from entry-specific photocopies I made several years before, and I lost some sections, including the bibliographic data. It was a Soviet-era encyclopedia - in Russian, though my Russian is virtually nonexistent, the unit entries are standardized, and I've got good dictionaries - on the Civil War and Entente Intervention.

I figured that although I couldn't provide citations, the articles didn't have much of anything on the Civil War era, so it was worth adding anyway, until someone else could cover the gaps. Jacob Haller 16:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob. Spotted your note on the talk page. You may not have noticed that the whole history of each army is covered in one page - the 'WW2' tag you added is inaccuate, as for example, the entry on the 40th Army covers WW2, postwar, and Afghanistan. This was my reason for amalgamating the army histories- for example, we don't have two articles on the

Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945. Anyway, I disagree, but quite willing to discuss; user:W. B. Wilson may be the person to arbitrate, as he's the other main contributer to these sorts of articles. Cheers Buckshot06 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: "absence of suitable template..."

That's about the weirdest edit explanation I've ever heard of. It doesn't make any sense to go about putting nonexistent templates in the encyclopedia. If something strikes you as non-sequitur, either edit it or go discuss it on the talk page. Don't allow templates that don't exist to sit around on pages. My 2 cents, anyway. Robert K S 23:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have not removed anything from my proposal, but I did add language from ASF to the NPOV section. I hope this is an acceptabel compromise for you, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is. I'm trying to think of better phrasing. Perhaps we should say that statements of opinion must be referenced and should be attributed to the appropriate group... Jacob Haller 16:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your dispute with the statement that Crimean Goths are a branch of the Ostrogoths, but if you are going to place a disputed tag, please put in a citation to the sources to the effect that "Heather, Kulikowski, et al. dispute this claim." Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am searching for more info on Crimean Gothic Arianism. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A

. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Theta buff 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Hey Mr. Haller! This is Phi Alpha Theta buff. I see you're staying on top of the Centralia Massacre article too, so I thought I'd talk to you directly![reply]

I've been going back on and forth on how much I should generalize the populace of Centralia as a whole, and keep coming back to the 1914-1919 timeframe of these events. Admittedly, by the late 1920's & definitely into the 1930's, popular opinion had taken a radical (nice pun, eh?) shift and the IWW had solid local and state-wide support.

However, up through the massacre and post trial (until about 1925), the vast vast majority of the citizenry of Centralia was fervently anti-IWW... not just because of the labor views, but also the nature of the most of the IWW members: itinerant, homeless, etc. The IWW was considered unpatriotic, bad for "big" business, bad for local business, bad for the town, bringing in "unsavory elements", causing crime, etc. etc. Opposition pretty much came from all sides, not just "the establishment". Whether or not it was justified or simply the result of inflammotory speeches and the like I think is is irrelevant, it was there.

Have a proposal... I will also be updating the Aftermath section of the article. In that, I will reference the general change in attitude of the town including the toning down of the opposition to parole for the convicted Wobblies - especially into the 1930's.

Once I've done that, I'd like to remove the "neutrality questioned" tags because, I think, we should have the "general populace" bias in the main body of the article. Yes, it is a bias, but I truly do think it is historically accurate because the town WAS biased.

What do you think???

I can see two ways to address my concern there: (1) in this case, citing nonpartisan sources which show that would help, though, in most political contexts, most people are relatively uninvolved (2) I don't have many sources, but the best option might be to cite sources for the makeup of each side. For example, in the west, most Wobs were itinerant workers. I can cite non-Centralia-specific sources for this. It might also help if you can find sources explaining why the union hall was in Centralia instead of elsewhere. Jacob Haller 19:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research . For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

]

My apologies. When I added the {{

]

Capitalism exeternal links section

If you were refering to this, that is not a valid explanation. Nozick is renowned philosopher and who hosts his essay is irrelevant. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

Delivered by grafikbot 09:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could give me any feedback on the recent additions I've made to the

]

Sorry, I'd like to help, but I'm not really familiar with Lange's proposals, and I'm reallu overstretched on Wikipedia already. Jacob Haller 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

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

Delivered by grafikbot 14:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yo, just stopping by from

]

Ostrogoth Kingdom grammatical error?

Hi Jacob. On my East-Hem 500ad.jpg map's talk page, you brought up that I have a grammatical error in the "Ostrogoth Kingdom". I appreciate you pointing out any possible errors, but please let me know how I can fix it! Should it be "Ostrogoths' Kingdom" or what? Also, any other suggestions would be appreciated! Thank you in advance, -- Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The

]

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the

]

Invite to the Anarchism Task Force

Yo, Jacob, if you're still activiely editing,

]

An article or 2 you might enjoy

[5] [6] LoveMonkey (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news The Intelligence task force has been created. The contest department has completed its ninth month of competition. The top scorer this month is Blnguyen, with 22 points, followed by Dreamafter, with 8 points, and Redmarkviolinist, with 6 points. Blnguyen also remains the overall leader, with 162 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Help with converting deprecated infoboxes is needed; any assistance is welcome! {{ WPMILHIST }} now supports an explicit tag (class=DAB) for marking disambiguation pages.	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Albuera Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081) Battle of the Gebora Constantine II of Scotland Francis Harvey Vasa (ship) Wulfhere of Mercia New A-Class articles: 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about minimizing terminological ambiguity has begun.
Awards and honors WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles. WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic. For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007 Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows: 1. Bedford — 7,600 2. TomStar81 — 5,500 3. Parsival74 — 5,200 4. FayssalF — 3,500 5. Roger Davies — 3,000 6. Ouro — 2600 7. Kateshortforbob — 2250 8. Cromdog — 2,200 9. BrokenSphere — 2000 9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000 9. Maralia — 2,000 12. MBK004 — 1,340 13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250 14. Sniperz11 — 1100 15. Burzmali — 1000 15. Cplakidas — 1000 15. Gimme danger — 1000 15. Raoulduke471000 15. TicketMan — 1000 15. Welsh — 1000 15. Blnguyen — 1000 Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes. We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here .

Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated,

]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The

]

Speedy deletion of Template:Ethnic slur

A tag has been placed on

section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion

, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 03:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The

talk) 04:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The

talk) 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Gothic War 402-403

Hi Jacob,

I noticed that at the page Gothic War, you added the Gothic War of 402-403. Do you have any information on this war?

Also, it seems that you are interested in the Goths. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject Barbarians? We could use a Gothic expert. Just add your username to the list to join.

Thanks!--Pecopteris (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aëtius of Antioch

I see you added Template:Contradict to Aëtius of Antioch some time ago, but there is no Talk comment corresponding to this. Could you please clarify where you see the contradiction? If this refers to the fact that different sources say different things about him, I don't think this should count as a contradiction in the article. --macrakis (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 22:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 15:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 21:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section

talk) 22:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page,

talk) 23:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page,

talk) 22:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Beatus of Liébana

Could you help address this diff? --RoyBoy 23:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "

Military history WikiProject.[reply

]

Military history coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from

[majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from

[majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Arian controversy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arian controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arian controversy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Jpacobb (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Missing

Hi. You are now

listed as missing. Should you ever return or choose not to be listed, you are welcome to remove your name. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]