User talk:Enriquecardova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Enriquecardova, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I also saw that one of the articles you edited was Shaka. As you may have noticed, Wikipedia is always in need of more Africa editors. I don't know if this is a continued area of interest for you, but if it is, here's some other links that you may want to check out:

Good luck, and happy editing! If you ever have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page; lots of folks helped me when I first got here and I'm always glad to pay it forward! --Dvyost 20:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Nice

For his thorough rewrite at Shaka, including some much needed citations in a previously unreferenced article, I hereby award Enriquecardova this pretty butterfly/Exceptional Newcomer Award--Dvyost 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
For his thorough rewrite at Shaka, including some much needed citations in a previously unreferenced article, I hereby award Enriquecardova this pretty butterfly/Exceptional Newcomer Award--Dvyost 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. I hope I'll see some more from you around! Best, --Dvyost 07:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Just an interest of mine. You have done some good work yourself.
Thanks for your scholarship re: Shaka. Wizzy…☎ 09:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are new to Wikipedia, you might not know the utility of the What links here link on each page. It might point to other pages that need attention, or at least adding to your watchlist. Other language pages (German, French wikipedias, links found at the top of the page) can also be a good source of information, though writers there often refer to the English wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions - but signatures only really belong on talk pages. Wizzy…☎ 06:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. As a new user, I have checked into what you say and understand a little bit more about some of the features and functions of Wikipedia, although there is still some way to go. You are also doing much interesting work in bringing Internet access to the poor of South Africa via open source software.

Enriquecardova 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits to Black Consciousness Movement

Thank you for your contributions to the article on the South African Black Consciousness Movement. I was wondering if what you've written is a result of your own analysis, or if it is a compilation of ideas that can be cited. Generally sections such as that one are not left in tact, being deleted as either being not sufficiently of a neutral point of view, or in this case being considered to be original research.

I am hoping that there are sources that we can cite along with your analysis, as what you have written is very good as it adds closure to the article as an article, while allowing the reader to see how the movements actions are a part of the living history of greater negritude and black/brown consciousness philosophies. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

..............

Fair enough. Most of the edit is drawn from research on the Movement as shown below. I have reorganized and included more information. The article as it is now has a number of statements unsupported by citations and/or supporting detail. For example:" "And it seemed to some that the key goals of Black Consciousness had been attained.." OR "And beyond these groups and media outlets, the Black Consciousness Movement had an extremely broad legacy.."

Since similar issues arise with greater negritude and black/brown consciousness philosophies, it is good to address them clearly.

I have added some sources at the bottom to round out the section. Enriquecardova 05:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking at those additions. Your sections still need some work. Its true that the article has some uncited opinions, and their "hidden" nature in the body of the article has slowed attempts to ferret them out. Where found, they should be pointed to, and if not cited, posibly removed. In this article, we have taken care to place most of our citations directly next to the fact that is cited. So, the proper way to place an opinion into an article is to write, "Person X thinks Y" (citation), rather than "Y" (citation), and also rather than placing Y into the body and leaving a citation of Y for the very end. This is, in effect, what your additions (and others including, probably, myself) amount to. While the research is still fresh in your mind, you should try to cite some of the particular opinions in the text you have added.
The reason for all of this is that we want our work to be an encyclopedia, a collection of organized, readily-verifiable facts. It is a fact that Nigel Gibson believes Fanon to be an influence on the BCM, so Gibson's work (along with Ramphela, etc) is cited when we talk about Fanon. Thus, when you say that "it was argued that..." this could be misconstrued as a straw man, unless you can cite who argued that. Continue finding sources, and you will improve the section you have added. However, don't be alarmed if what you've added is moved to "talk," as it may be more appropriate to put it there and make changes to it until other editors watching the article are comfortable with the additions. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


A lot of the entire article has opinion buried in the text, as in the 2 examples given above. Such similar sections should likewise be removed into talk, since they do not meet the standard you propose either. If such is to be applied, then let it be across the board. The Fanon example you give merely points readers to the Fanon page, and the mention of Fanon in the text, does not specifically cite the Gibson reference, nor the specific influences on Biko, hence it does not meet the standard you propose as well. Also these arguments mentioned were the same given to Biko and others, and they replied to them, as noted in the quotation by Biko. In fact the references given explicitly set forth such arguments at the time, and are hereby noted in the body of the text.
Without yet moving to conflicting edits or arbitration, I do not think the section should be arbitrarily moved to talk. If so, then many other sections need to go as well in the interests of consistency. Let it stay and let others see what they can do with it, or if they can improve references, then let them give it a shot and improve on it. Or let disclaimers and requests for citation be added to the article, like some others in Wikipedia such as "Afrocentrism."
As regards replacing problematic terminology such as "it should be argued" to something better like "it was said" this is fine, and I am happy to do it and add more detail. But what is set forth in the new section is well supported, indeed explicitly set forth in references like Gerhart and Columbia. Indeed, it does so more than many other areas of the article. Let several persons or a set of neutral arbitrators take an objective look, rather than one person, and let them apply the SAME standard across the board to ALL sections of the entire article, without favoritism.
As you yourself say about the section in your talk comments of 2/27 above:
"what you have written is very good as it adds closure to the article as an article, while allowing the reader to see how the movements actions are a part of the living history of greater negritude and black/brown consciousness philosophies. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)"
Based on what you write, it seems to me then that the edit is useful, and rather than simply been moved to talk, others should have the opportunity to add to it and improve it. Indeed I agree with you when you say: "what you have written is very good as it adds closure to the article as an article.."

Enriquecardova 06:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm, ok, cool. All I meant was that it was sudden to see a long addendum on the article which wasn't originally well sourced. Such things are sometimes removed on sight, or sent to talk to be discussed and added back when they are sourced. Sourcing it, as you have, obviously precludes that need. I, personally, would be more likely to see my additions removed suddenly than to remove someone elses. But, let me say, I am happy with what I see. When I have time, I might edit your references (gosh, the article has at least three very different referencing styles now) and sectioning to fit with the style of references in the article, but to me it now looks a lot better. I'm not the best WP-editor, though, so it may take a while before I get a chance to address the issues you pointed to.
If you have the patience, you could pick out the things that need citing and mention them at talk. I can't think of a good source for the statement that the goals had been attained, but the second statement about the broad legacy could easily be sourced to the Brewer book, or even Ramphela's autobiography. Sorry to be telling you all this while I'm not doing anything to the article myself. I'll get to it eventually, I'm sure. Anyway, great work, keep it up. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I have made some adjustments based on the comments you made. Improvements can be further incorporated into what I have written no doubt, and I am open to suggestions. You have done an impressive amount of work yourself on a variety of Wikipedia articles. Enriquecardova 01:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLK

Hey, I've been noticing your edits on Martin Luther King, Jr. and I just wanted to drop by and say what a pleasure it is to see good constructive work being done on that article, especially since it's usually just a morass of vandalism. Thanks! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[1]: Oh my god! Please start to use "Show preview" --Sarazyn 11:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Law Montogomery

Hi, I've put some comments about your contributions on the talk page. It's good stuff, but I have some reservations. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. MAG1 22:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with much of what you say and have worked in some suggestions as explained on the Talk age.

[edit] Check this article

Roman legion is a very detailed article on the Roman military. A detailed discussion of the apparaisal of the Roman military could be better off there. Wandalstouring 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have checked it and it appears a fair addition. Will modify as needed. Keep up the good work on the History of the Military. None can say that all contributors are not passionate about history!

[edit] Thank you

thanks for your edits in the article Roman infantry tactics, strategy and battle formations --Philx 10:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to chip in. The tactics article is valuable, and the pictures I think add visual interest. Much good work had been done. Most other articles on the military deal with a simple record of events, or like the Legion article is mostly on structure. But this article has opened up an "intermediate" zone of inquiry between the two. It also fills a missing gap in analyzing Roman tactics and strategy, as well as the factors that made the infantry effective.
Thank to your valuable efforts the article is shaping very well, thanks again! --Philx 12:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Banksvspele3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Banksvspele3.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Banksvspele-coop2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Banksvspele-coop2.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman infantry tactics

Just wanted to say thanks for your work on this article in the last day or so - I had to correct a couple of links (typos) but other than that it was great - I really think that article needs some more work so good on you for having a stab at it! Cheers PocklingtonDan 07:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. One quick question- maybe you can point me to the right HELP page. How do I (a) rename an article and (b) move an article. I have seen a page discussing these topics but can't recall it saying HOW to do it. Thanks Enriquecardova 19:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 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 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help on tactics

hi enriqueverda, Would you be interested in giving the cavalry tactics a new structure? A small subsection concerns African use of cattle as a kind of shock cavalry, perhaps you can also help expand that section and improve citation. Greetings Wandalstouring 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your organization of the Cavalry tactics article is sound. I cannot do much to the cattle section save to add a small example. According to Adrian Goldsworthy, when Hannibal was passing through the Alps, and found his route blocked by hostile tribesmen, he utilized cattle as a shock force, tying torches to some of them, and driving them towards the enemy. In the resulting confusion, his main force slipped away. Will throw in this example, for what its worth. Enriquecardova 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I know this story about Hannibal from Polybius. He says it was in Campania (a valley in Italy where he was trapped by the Romans under Fabius) and it was used to irritate the enemy and not for an attack. Anything about Khoikhoi or Xhosa using cattle in battle? Wandalstouring 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite possibly Fabius. I'll have to relook at the Goldsworthy example. Can't recally anything on the local tribesman using cattle in battle as regards Africa, besides the usual logistical use. Enriquecardova 01:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Credits

I feel really honored if it is only for me that you delet POV issues, but on the other hand some readers might also object. I think I figured out a possible reason why Delbrück liked the Celts: They used strategic reserves of chariots and cavalry according to Polybius (when trapped between the Romans in the Battle of Telamon). Wandalstouring 07:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with some of your suggestions and have modified writing to make more neutral statements and added more references. Dont think I am just objecting to what yous ay. Some of the issues you raise are legitimate. I think you have done good work on many of these articles and actually I agree with you that Celtic cavalry was superior to Rome on some counts. I saw a writing somewhere that backed up what you say. The Celts pulled up their chariots ans sent out assault forces on foot, while the chariot drivers massed in reserve a distance away, ready to ride up in support, or to collect their assault troops if the engagement was going badly. It may well indeed have been Polybius. I think this is an excellent example and in fact will add a new paragraph using what you have written. Enriquecardova 07:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming articles

Hi there - I just noticed the query you had above about moving and renaming articles. I'm sure the person you were trying to ask would have helped if they had seen your message, but as the wikiproject welcome message was probably automated, they probably didn't (to get someone's attention, write to them on their talk page). To answer your questions, if you're still wondering, you can move pages to new names through the "move" tab at the top of the wikipedia screen. If you have any other queries about wikipedia editing, I will be happy to try to help if I can (I have a moderate level of wikipedia experience). Keep on the great work you're doing. Bwithh 04:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. When you have time, let me ask: I know the 3-revert rule but what's the general policy on moving pages? Some names just seem to change overnight to new names without warning. Enriquecardova 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this page is what you're looking for :Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages#Renaming_.2F_Moving. Quick tip - while it is possible to set the Wikipedia search bar to look through policy pages, I find it usually quicker and much more straightforward just to google within the wikipedia site e.g.[2]. Bwithh 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
If you like, I can paste an easier-to-use help guide and tip of the day function onto your user page (you can of course remove this if you prefer not to have it, or move it to a new page within your userspace) Bwithh 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Go ahead. Thanks.Enriquecardova 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Check out your user page (tab at the top) now. Hope its handy and useful for you! Bwithh 05:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)




[edit] Thanks from da Teth...

Dear sir, I would like to thank you for your (great) contributions to the controversy over race of the Ancient Egyptians article, but why were you blocked from editing it? I liked how you showed to these vandalizing trolls that Diop's basic thesis (his work did have some flaws) has been proven by the recent mainstream instead of refuted. You finally brought some much needed objectivity and analysis into the article that had been missing since the days of deecevoice, yom, and of course, me. You look like Dr. Spock in a sea of pissing three year olds!!! Keep up the good work. Get back at me. Peace. Teth22 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for what you say. The block came from reverting the changes that were were making to the page. More than 3 reverts in 24 hours and Wikipedia gives you a automatic block. To find out more how Wikipedia works on this end, click the help page on the left. The clique with the bogus user names essentially want to a "Mediterranean" type approach. It is disguised but that is why they still have in King Tut's picture even though it is a copyright violation, and that is why they have done everything to keep out even what the mainstream scholars are saying. The game is to water down any hard scholarship or protray everything else as a "crazy fringe" while appearing as "non racial" But if they were honest they would include the mainstream scholars who also argue for a non-racial approach. The desperate attempts to keep them out show their true motives.
Ironically, the mainstream folks are now moving somewhat towards Diop's position, generally saying that the Egyptians were their own brand, which includes all skin colors, face shapes etc. A Nile Valley brand. Diop held that blacks varied in physical appearance and could not all be confined far south of the Sahara as under the old Dynastic Race Theory. That is why they tried desperately to keep the information out of the article. Unable to make their case intellectually, they tried bogus sockpuppet names, bogus requests for deletion, bogus claims of "consensus", and multiple reverts and changes under the sockpuppet names they are hiding under. It is all deception from people who can't be intellectually honest. They were even loading up my personal page with harrassment tags using various user names, which I've reported and will open RFCs on soon. This is what these people are. Check out the web link below for one of the best statements of what current scholarship in the field is saying. Well take it easy and keep up the good work!Enriquecardova 14:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy over racial characteristics of ancient Egyptians

Hey. Sorry to see your edits to this article were taken away. I'm going to put them here so we can work on them in private until they're ready to be added. Feel free to edit them. ==Taxico 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. By all means, if you have other data or information on the topic your contribution is welcome. I am taking a break from this particular article having neglected several others, but will return in a week or two. Thanks for your input. Enriquecardova 02:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Hi there - I noticed that there have been concerns about sockpuppets around the Egypt racial characteristics article. If this continues to be a significant problem, here is the place to report this issue: WP:SSP. Happy editing! Bwithh 06:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that link. Didn't even know it existed!Enriquecardova 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 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 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptians

I just read the note you left me, but already I can see that you are anonymously edit warring over the origins section in the Egyptians article. Please learn to respect WP:CON in order to reach consensus, which will surely not come about by engaging in obnoxious behavior. If the mess that became of the "racial" controversy article as a result of this behavior is any indication, it's a sure way of getting your edits reveted. I am reverting any changes to this particular section made without discussion. I also don't have time to address your contentions at the moment, I'm not even supposed to be here today. Suffice for now to say that you continue to show misunderstanding of some of the studies; e.g., saying that "others maintain..." when there are no essential disagreements between Irish, Brace or Keita. Of course, you have not actually read Brace or Irish, so misunderstanding is bound to happen. I don't have an issue with Yurco obviously since I pointed him out in the first place (one of my favorite Egyptologists actually). But this will have to wait until tomorrow. I will leave a response below your message. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 18:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

response
  • No anonymous edit warring, just a server that logged me out. If I was going anonymous I would not be leaving you a message.
  • However I must also note that you seem to have no problems with the anonymous insertion of the POV you earlier agreed to remove from the Ancient Egyptian article.
  • You mention Consensus, but fail to note the consensus earlier agreed to earlier on these issues re Ancient Egypt
  • As for the "mess" made of the "racial" article it hardly was that, only a number of users too intellectually dishonest to debate the issues and who had to resort to continual edit warring to keep out scholarship. You know that too. It was a mess to begin with, and it remains so, because many do not want a balanced approach or scholarship, and prefer a weak article so certain things are kept out. I am not fooled. We all know the game.
  • As for "misunderstanding" the different approaches I have the full text before me of Irish, et al, avaialable on the web from the wysinger site, and can clearly see where the writing is being distorted and slanted. There are a number of clear disagreements between the scholars- fundamental disagreements on the origin of the Egyptians. You would know this if you read the writings of Keita, Hassan, et al. For example, the notion of tropical types in the "deep" south is totally inaccurate. In fact, Hassan 1988, Yurco 1986, Verncoutter 1974 show they strong around al Badari and Abydos, among other places- hardly "deep" south. This is another example of how you (or others) are trying to blatantly slant the article to push the Irish/Brace "Mediterranean" approach. The long quote is a further example, as well as a number of other points I will mention later.
  • You are an intelligent person. Let's clear the air and get down to business. It is obvious to me you or various allies wanted to reinsert the Brace/Irish POV that I challenged earlier on Ancient Egypt. It was removed there, but then quietly recycled in 'Egyptians'. We know this. Let's be candid without pretense. This matter can be quickly settled along the lines agreed to earlier. (a)Remove the long dental study quote which slants the article. (you can keep a simple sentence referencing it. (b) Insert a line or two showing reference to what the other scholars say, in particular fixing the slant re the notion of the "deep" south and failing to mention the Nubians who as Yurco notes are the closest foreign group ethnically to the Egyptians,[1] and (c) end of story, we all move on.

The final product might look something like that below. You appear to be an intelligent and reasonable person. Make your own changes, and if fair and balanced this matter will be quickly put to rest:

Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt have been ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south. Mediterranean influences were present in the north, while a tropical African pattern was also present in the deep south. The mixture of these influences varied over the course of Egyptian history[21][22][23][24] Some scholars hold that when Lower and Upper Egypt were unified c. 3150 BC, the distinction began to blur, resulting in a more "homogeneous" population in Egypt, though the distinction remains true to some degree to this day.[25][26][27] Others maintain that there was a significant range of variability between the northern and southern populations that was primarily indigenous in scope and not necessarily a significant mingling of widely divergent physical types.[28]
A 2006 bioanthropological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians by Prof. Joel Irish shows dental traits characteristic of indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Southwest Asian populations. Among the samples included in the study is skeletal material from the Hawara tombs of Fayum, which was found to be virtually identical to that of the Badarian series of the predynastic period. Biological continuity was found intact from the dynastic to the post-pharaonic periods.[29-insert ref to Irish again]
A group of noted physical anthropologists conducted similar studies and concluded that "the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."[30] A number of scholars note this continuity as including a range of types in situ, including a southern tropical modal cranial metric phentoype in the well-known Badarian group, and consider this an indigenous development based on microevolutionary principles (climate adaption, drift and selection) and not the movement of large numbers of outside peoples into Egypt.[31]
Genetic analysis of modern Egyptians reveals that they have paternal lineages common to indigenous North Africans/Berber populations primarily, and to Near Eastern peoples to a lesser extent. These lineages would have spread during the Neolithic and maintained by the predynastic period.[32][33] Studies based on maternal lineages also link Egyptians with people from modern Eritrea/Ethiopia such as the Tigre.[34][35]Linkages in the northeast African region are part of a broad Nilotic pattern and also include Nubians, Somalis and others. [36][37]

I will shortly put neutrality dispute tags on the page and open an RFC. We can debate and edit for the next 6 weeks but since it is easy to round up friends to fill the Talk pages, a Dispute Resolution before a neutral panel is probably the likely outcome. They would be able to look not only at the scholarly data, but at all the evidence, including what was removed from 'Ancient Egypt', then reinserted in 'Egytians'. As I say you do not appear to fit the standard Wikipedia profile and appear to be more sensitive and capable in terms of looking at the data in a balanced way, versus and more extreme types here and there. All I ask for is greater balance, and I beleive this matter can be quickly settled in the true Wikipedia spirit without any arbitration panel. Enriquecardova 19:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 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 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign history of the Roman military - FAC nomination

Hi, I have self-nominated Campaign history of the Roman military for featured article status: FAC nomination. However, people are being incredibly reticent about remarking on it either positively or negatively, I think a lot of people lack the specific subject knowledge to confidently support or oppose the nomination. Since you I belive have a sound knowledge of ancient Rome, would it be possible for you to post your own comments on whether or not you believe the article is of featured article quality, and any improvements to the article that you think are called for. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 11:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

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 13:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 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.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 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 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/r/User_talk%7EEnriquecardova_689e.html"