| Revision as of 18:47, 8 February 2007 editSijo Ripa (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,108 editsm →Campaign history of the Roman military: support ane compliments: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:30, 8 February 2007 edit undoSemperf (talk | contribs)7,465 edits Military historyNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I reward you the Original Barnstar for your fine contributions on the ] article! The hard work is appreciated! ] 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I reward you the Original Barnstar for your fine contributions on the ] article! The hard work is appreciated! ] 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| |} ] 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |} ] 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Military history == | |||
| Hi Dan. Thanks for your note. We probably got off on the wrong foot the other day; my apologies if I misbehaved. As you can probably tell, I have serious misgivings about the article's conception, especially the idea of having one article on 1300 years of wars and battles, another on 1300 years of tactical evolution, etc., etc. If I had been involved in that decision, I would have argued for chronological divisions: early Rome, middle Republic, Punic Wars, etc., with narrative history illustrating the evolution of tactics, logistics, and strategics. But it is a bit late for that, and since I'm not inclined to get involved myself in these articles, it is probably best if I bite my tongue. | |||
| On sources, I have a different view about what good references are supposed to be doing. Ideally, they are not merely to identify some authority to which fact x can be attributed. They should also be suggestions for further exploration. The reader that wants to know about Pyrrhus can look at your footnote and find there the best things to read. Rather than Grant's ''History of Rome'' (which is one small book covering all Roman history) or Lane Fox's ''The Classical World'' (again, one small, general book on the whole of Classical history and literature), you might try N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus, 1967, or Franke in the Cambridge Ancient History. Or the work of E.T. Salmon on Samnium rather than Grant and Lane Fox. | |||
| This, however, is not a few days work, but a few weeks or months. But if it were done properly, we'd have created a resource that would be of great use to people. (I have quite a good private ancient history library and live not far from a good university library. So if there is anything you need, I might be able to scans to you.) | |||
| On capitalization, it seems to be mostly fixed: the Goldsmith article is the only thing I see now that is out of sync with the rest. | |||
| Best wishes, ] 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:30, 8 February 2007
Leave a message if you like.
bad day?
sorry but somehow it seems like you had a bad day. Well, I can understand that there are quite a lot of issues with the Roman military that need to be discussed etc. but it is also one of the most difficult tasks you could choose and somehow you presumeably have a real life to handle besides doing research for wikipedia. All in all I wanted to tell you take a wikibreak, do some sport and come back with fresh power and a different point of view. Wandalstouring 20:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What the?
Dan! What's going on, what's happening! what's happened! I had to work today. I get back to the article and holy smoke! You ARE having a bad day. First, I agree with sandygeorgia's rv of your article. It is MUCH better than the short version. If this is how you are going to react I take it all back. Don't make it shorter. Leave the notes just as they are. I knew in my bones this would happen. All I have really are minor edits. If you will put it back I will just recommend it as it is (long form). What did it for you, buddy? Was it my comments on British English? I was half joking, you know. For goodness sake. No, if I thought you were going to react this way I would have just gone through and made the minor punctuation corrections and taken out the ",then," myself. Ignore my comments. Remember, I said the problem with comments is they always get taken the wrong way. Tsk tsk tsk. This is terrible. Do we have to lose such a good article so quick? It isn't fair. Put the article back. Take a break. One of the reasons you have not heard more on this article is that it is a good article. We just leave good stuff alone. At this point in my editing I always take a break. The world is so many and I am so few. Discretion is the better part of valor. If I read you correctly I do not think you will be happy just giving up on this thing. So, just put it back and let it cook for a bit. Perhaps we will put it back for you. Later after you resolve your feelings you can just pick it up again.Dave 02:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
More from Dave
Well I poked around a little bit and found a little more about it, but not that much. As far as I can discern, I think I can say that we are very fond of you, buddy, and wish you would come back. Come back to us. Everyone does have bad days you know. I've been reading about the bad days of Louis Leakey and he sure makes me feel better about my bad days. Maybe I should have taken more of a hand commenting to your commenters; for example, one fellow was asking for more historical analysis. But this isn't the place for historical analysis. The article is mainly to tie together all the other articles; i.e., it's a pointer. I understand your frustration very well. There is a certain level of "noise" inherent in Misplaced Pages. I've had to deal with quite a lot of it myself but I try to keep my eye on the articles. Every once in a while a Dan Pocklington comes along to restore my hope that tangled webs do get unwoven. Otherwise what do we have? An opportunity to say nasty things on the Internet, generously provided by Jimmy Wales. When I start looking at the barnstars of the administrators I see the same sort of thing for each one: thanks for your persistence through thick and thin. I would like to see you as on vacation. When you get back just revert your page and tell us you are back and pursue your old interests, maybe with more space for yourself. Come back.Dave 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wandalstouring, Dave, apologies
My wikistress levels peaked yesterday after I seemed to be fighting a hydra with a thicket of heads - every time I addressed one issue with the article, another two popped up. I unforunately took it out on the poor article. I have now reverted it to its full version and made some more work on it this morning. - PocklingtonDan 11:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I have several hydras myself and sometimes the best you can do is let them live until you are thoroughly prepared to kill them. In the meantime the assessment system keeps them at bay. Pushing all articles forward at the same time tends to end up in disaster. Wandalstouring 13:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Dan! Where's that nice user page you used to have?Dave 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
FAC reply
I just want to make clear that I added a lot of "good ideas" which I thought would make the article better but in the end aren't of great importance. I do think you really need to make sure that we know how those maps were created to be sure that they are verifiable and I don't think there should be any supports without that. You didn't comment on it in your reply so--just posting here to make sure you notice it. I will try to contact the image creators and see if they can shed more light and maybe save you some work. gren グレン 18:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Campaign history of the Roman military: support and compliments
I've striked that one comment and have read the other comments. I cannot come up with any reasons to withhold my support. I have checked the edit history of the page. My compliments for the hard work:
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I reward you the Original Barnstar for your fine contributions on the Campaign history of the Roman military article! The hard work is appreciated! Sijo Ripa 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
Sijo Ripa 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Military history
Hi Dan. Thanks for your note. We probably got off on the wrong foot the other day; my apologies if I misbehaved. As you can probably tell, I have serious misgivings about the article's conception, especially the idea of having one article on 1300 years of wars and battles, another on 1300 years of tactical evolution, etc., etc. If I had been involved in that decision, I would have argued for chronological divisions: early Rome, middle Republic, Punic Wars, etc., with narrative history illustrating the evolution of tactics, logistics, and strategics. But it is a bit late for that, and since I'm not inclined to get involved myself in these articles, it is probably best if I bite my tongue.
On sources, I have a different view about what good references are supposed to be doing. Ideally, they are not merely to identify some authority to which fact x can be attributed. They should also be suggestions for further exploration. The reader that wants to know about Pyrrhus can look at your footnote and find there the best things to read. Rather than Grant's History of Rome (which is one small book covering all Roman history) or Lane Fox's The Classical World (again, one small, general book on the whole of Classical history and literature), you might try N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus, 1967, or Franke in the Cambridge Ancient History. Or the work of E.T. Salmon on Samnium rather than Grant and Lane Fox.
This, however, is not a few days work, but a few weeks or months. But if it were done properly, we'd have created a resource that would be of great use to people. (I have quite a good private ancient history library and live not far from a good university library. So if there is anything you need, I might be able to scans to you.)
On capitalization, it seems to be mostly fixed: the Goldsmith article is the only thing I see now that is out of sync with the rest.
Best wishes, Semperf 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)