User talk:Vedexent/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Current • Feb-Aug, 2006 • Aug, 2006 onwards

Contents

[edit] Dyson Sphere

Thank you very much for your feedback to the peer review of the Dyson sphere article. Your suggestions have been incorporated into the article.

My pleasure. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Footnote levels?

There's really no such thing as having too many footnotes, in my opinion (with the proviso that multiple footnotes for a single sentence should be combined into a single note, so there's a natural limit of [# of sentences] footnotes for an article). Even if there was, ~60 would certainly not be a reasonable upper limit; see, for example, this article.

(Having said that: have you considered using "<div class="references-small"><references/></div>"?) Kirill Lokshin 21:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I just figured out where said feedback was received.
My (strictly personal) advice would be to take the suggestions of the reviewer in question with a very large grain of salt; some of the points he makes are quite silly—it's always a good thing to cite multiple sources, in particular—and he's espoused some rather... unusual... views in the past (e.g. here). Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rome (TV series)

Thank you very much for your helpful feedback on the talk page about the episode list I was editing. You made a very good point on the formatting of other tables to match as well. Per your suggestion, I've been working on those too. Would you mind taking a peek at those additional tables and providing me feedback, yet again? They are now located on the same page as the original list, which in turn is located here.

Though I am hoping for any and all feedback, I also am in particular need of feedback on the multiple use of "no image" links under secondary characters. I personally don't like it and wondered if by chance you might have an idea. Should I merge the summary section for each, until a photo is found? (x-posted to the Rome talk page) MagnoliaSouth | Talk 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Third Servile War

Yep, that's why; I suspect it will pass easily once the issue brought up there has been fixed. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's a great article already. One thing that could be done to improve it is to expand the Aftermath section a little. Were there are discernible long-term consequences from this struggle? Right now the Aftermath mostly speaks about how the war helped Crassus and Pompey rise to positions of power. That is certainly important, but I was just wondering if there was anything else that could go there.
The other main thing is it needs a copyedit. Would you like me to give it one now?UberCryxic 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
All-right I've given it a thorough copyedit, but I think my edits might have undone some of your most recent ones (there was an edit conflict apparently). Check to see if I changed anything too drastically and just change those portions back to the version you like.UberCryxic 16:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing. And congratulations to you for writing such a great article. You will definitely have my support when this goes to FAC.UberCryxic 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, please feel free to put it up! (If there are any other issues with the article, I doubt you'll find them without subjecting it to the full FAC gauntlet, in any case.) Kirill Lokshin 14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fermi Paradox and "logic 101"

I haven't involved myself with this article for a while, but I saw your edit summary comments and took a look at the content of the edits in question. I'd like to point out that the content of your edits, and those that you're arguing against, do not match your comments. Your "opponent" is not stating that anything--a negative or otherwise--has been proven; he's only saying that the theory your edits describe is not supported by current science. Furthermore, It isn't correct to say that "a negative cannot be proven." Any statement, including a provable one, can be stated as a negative (the square root of 9 is not 42). Even the in type of speculation where people tend to bring up the cliche' that a negative cannot be proven, the cliche' is often incorrect. Those who believe there is a Loch Ness Monster might say "you can't prove it doesn't exist." But you can: just drain the lake and check for any monsters flopping around in the mud. KarlBunker 02:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FAC comment

Hi Vedexent - yes you should take it as a compliment. I did want to read more, and maybe an "analysis" or future impact section would have been useful to add. I know the sources are limited, so its perfectly ok. Rama's arrow 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Servile War -results

Spartacus and Declining Slavery

will add more.

Wandalstouring 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wow

Thank you for your kind words! Kirill Lokshin 20:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: MACV-SOG

Thanks for the advice. As you can see, I was intelligent enough to follow some of it. Did some grad work in the subject area, but at the time (the mid-80s) there just wasn't enough primary source material out there. Worked on a history of the Joint Chief's involvement in the escalation period for my master's thesis instead. Have always been fascinated by the tantalizing puzzle of SOG. Spent years prying it apart and putting it back together again. RM Gillespie 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue VII - September 2006
Project news
Current proposals and discussions

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Citizendium.Project

Personally, I have no intentions of participating in Citizendium. Aside from the fact that I consider forks to be a bad idea in general (see below), I have no formal education in anything resembling history, so my participation there would necessarily be as a second-class citizen. I'd much rather work in an (admittedly flawed) system where everyone has at least the potential to work on an equal level than one where anyone without a suitably long CV is relegated to grunt work.

More generally, forks tend to be very drastic things. Not only is there a split of the community, but, more fundamentally, a split of the encyclopedia itself. Nobody will actually bother merging changes to one copy of the article into the other, because it would simply be too much work to keep them synchronized. Insofar as Wikipedia functions as a market externality—in other words, where the benefit for someone to use it is proportional to the number of other users—creating a split version will lead to poorer-quality material in both, since the overall number of editors fixing things will be smaller in each case. (Although the flaws will likely be in different topic areas.)

(All this quite aside from the practical problems with Sanger's proposal. The requirement of using real names is extraordinarily problematic; the effect will be that articles which are controversial—particularly where certain additions may provoke legal (or extra-legal!) reprisals—will simply be abandoned.)

Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure this isn't the case; I vaguely recall that a majority (and perhaps as much as 80%) of anonymous edits are constructive. It's only a relatively small number of prominent articles that seem to attract large numbers of vandals; the vast majority of the article base has only occasional edits, most of which are genuninely helpful. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Without anonymous editors a lot of minor mistakes would not get fixed so quickly. Wandalstouring 11:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue VIII - October 2006
Project news
Current proposals and discussions

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Troopers & Portrayals of Mormons in popular media

You are correct that none of the main characters are Mormon, but in the book there is a whole Mormon colony that is described as being warned to evacuate, they don't, and they are slaughtered. In the movie it is instead shown as a short news bulletin, with the unmistakable Angel Moroni statue shown above the compound with the dead colonists strewn around. They don't play as major part in the story as they did in Heinlein's Sixth Column, but they are there. -- 71.35.41.92 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did a text search of the book. The word "Mormon" is not in the text anywhere.
You may have an argument for the movie version, but Mormons are not mentioned in the book at all. - Vedexent (talk) - 05:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It was included in the movie because it was in the book. I don't have a "searchable" copy other that my 60's era hardcopy, so it'll take a while for me to find the exact page(s). I was unaware that it was legitimately available in electronic form at this time -- is it available online, and if so what is the URL? That might make it easier (and faster) for me to give you the citation that way, as we'd be looking at the same thing (page number getween the various printings aren't exact). Other key words you could try in your search are "Latter", "Latter-day", "Saints", "Utah", "Colony", and "Colonists". If I have time tomorrow I might look though the book & find it. -- 71.35.41.92 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Well. I didn't say it was a legitimately available electronic text file of the book. However, I have done a text search for "Latter", "Latter-day", "Saints", "Utah", "Colony", and "Colonists". "Latter", "Latter-day", "Saints", "Utah" come up negative. "Colony" turns up references to "Sanctuary" (the Terran Federation's "alternate Earth"), Iskander (the human colony in the proxima centauri system), "Faraway" (which is mentioned as a human colony that has been occupied by the Arachnids, but is not mentioned as being Mormon), Sheol (which is an Arachnid colony). The only other planets I remember being mention are Klendathu (the Arachnid home world) and "Planet P" (another "Bug" planet and not even a colony, but "an uncompleted advance base").

A Google.com search for "Starship Troopers Mormon" as well as "Starship Troopers Latter Day Saints" yields many references to Mormons in the film version, but no mention of Mormons in the book version. In fact, I found the following:

"Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the movie version of which mentions Mormons)" - Mainstream Science Fiction and Fantasy with Latter-day Saint (Mormon) Characters and References

and

"Bob Heinlein was never a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but he had friends and acquaintances who were. Many of his novels and short stories include Latter-day Saint characters or references to the Church. These include Stranger in a Strange Land; Tunnel in the Sky; Citizen of the Galaxy; Friday; Double Star; To Sail Beyond The Sunset and Job: A Comedy of Justice. The novel If This Goes On (now published in the collection Revolt in 2100) features extensive references to Latter-day Saints and an extended scene that takes place in Provo, Utah.

Despite Heinlein's propensity for including references to Latter-day Saints in his writing, and the fact that there is just such a reference in the film version of his Hugo Award-winning novel, I have not been able to find such a reference in the book. There are two possibilities: The references to "Mormon extremists" and "Port Joe Smith" may appear only in earlier editions of the novel, but has been edited out and does not appear in recently published editions. Alternatively, this scene showing a Latter-day Saint colony on another planet was entirely imagined up by the movie's screenwriter or director. " - References to Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the movie Starship Troopers (1997) - my italics

The only possible Mormon reference I can see is if the name "Regato" is uniquely Mormon, which doesn't seem likely.

"Clearly enough put. Do you remember Madame Ruitman? I was on a few days leave after I finished Basic and I went home. I saw some of our friends, said good-by -- she among them. She chattered away and said, `So you're really going out? Well, if you reach Faraway, you really must look up my dear friends the Regatos.' "

"I told her, as gently as I could, that it seemed unlikely, since the Arachnids had occupied Faraway.

I suspect that you are incorrectly remembering an instance of Mormonism in a different novel as being in Starship Troopers. Given that Heinlein did in fact make numerous references to the Latter-Day Saints in his writing, it is an easy and understandable mistake to make. Alternatively, I just haven't found it yet. If you can find the reference in the text, please let me know - you have me wondering now :) - Vedexent (talk) - 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of ancient Rome

Hi, thanks for the copyedit. I was aware it was a colloquialism but was trying to liven up the section headers :-) Since you obviously have some knowledge of this area, I don't suppose that you would be interested in helping to expand the article into full prose? It is in an early state at the moment but we are trying to work it into a narrative account of the roman military's campagin history, with notes on other factors such as political impact, structural changes etc, where relevant. WOuld you be interested in helping? Cheers - PocklingtonDan 15:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Military Project

Just a note about your restructuring of the Roman military articles; are you not, essentially, re-creating a portal through a hierarchical structure of articles like that? Have you considered creating a Wikipedia:Portal for the project? - Vedexent (talk) - 23:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd also direct your attention to the discussion here - Vedexent (talk) - 03:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I shall have a look at this now - PocklingtonDan 08:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have set up a (start class) portal now. Please have a look at it and let me know your comments for improvement and tying it in tot he articles and areas it covers. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks for the distringuished service award by the way! - PocklingtonDan 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legio XIII Gemina's "motto"

I reverted you edit, as "Pia Fidelis" is not a motto, but a name.--Panarjedde 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! My bad. Sorry :) - Vedexent (talk) - 13:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Vedexent, this is my second revert on you, today, but I assure you I have nothing personally against you. My second revert was caused by two things: (1) bolding the name of the author in the note has no support anywhere, as far as I know; (2) MacBride is a book about legions, while the CIL is referenced just for a "footnote".--Panarjedde 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portals and links

Check Amphibious warfare: it is in the Portal:War scope, yet it has only 1 link to the portal, not twice.--Panarjedde 22:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I find no utility in our discussions, as you clearly evade them. I would gladly avoid future interaction with you, if possible.--Panarjedde 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
*Laughs* I think the content of User talk:Panarjedde speaks volumes on its own for the validity of the "calm, rational, polite and 'oh-so-wounded by your unreasonable attitude'" facade you project here as your "parting shot". - Vedexent (talk) - 22:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue IX - November 2006
Project news
Current proposals and discussions

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Grafikbot 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Shadowrun being inspired by Neuromancer

Hello! I guess I could understand your request for a citation if had I stated "Shadowrun‎ was inspired by Neuromancer" within the article. But all I did was add a link to a Wikipedia article about Shadowrun to the "See also" section. Neuromancer was published in 1984; Shadowrun followed closely in 1989. If the game was not inspired by "Neuromancer", then what was the inspiration? Both involve cybernetic enhancements (including retractable razors, a direct lift from the book), a Japanese theme (including a samurai character class, another direct lift), Cyberspace Decks/Decks (direct lift), and most telling...The Matrix. Do any of the writers/authors of the game specifically credit Neuromancer? Not that I can find; from my research, my understanding is that Mr. Gibson does not approve of Shadowrun, nor was he ever paid anything for the lifts, so the game designers are probably thanking their lucky stars that they haven't been sued. I imagine finding such a citation would be nigh on impossible. Would it make you more comfortable if I removed the phrase "inspired by Neuromancer"? Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings.
I asked specifically about a citation, for two reasons:
  • The "holy grail" of Wikipedia (and the only way to stop edit wars) is verifiability.
  • This edit here - which was not done by me, and is not cited either (i.e. I can't tell with any certainty if Gibson said this or not).
It seems that this is a (possible) "point of contention" over the article, so I think given that it is a minor point, it should probably be left out unless it can actually be cited.
I admit there are many similarities between elements in the book, and elements in the game. Does this mean that Neuromancer was a direct inspiration? Personally, I believe it is pretty clear that it does. Personally, I agree with you. However one can make the argument that Neuromancer heavily influenced all other Cyberpunk genre stories (pretty much every element you have mentioned can be found elsewhere), and that Shadowrun merely borrows from the genre. I suspect this is why the makers of Shadowrun have not been sued.
In short: I think you're right, but it is a possible flash point of an "edit war" (as stupid and petty as that is), and it is not an unassailable position (even though it seem "common sense"), and given that it is a minor point, unless it can be defended under strictest verifiability guidelines, it might be wise to just leave it off the article.
A stupid veering into Wikipedia politics, I know - but we cannot change human nature
Vedexent (talk) - 18:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with every point you make. I'll add my own conjecture that another reason the Shadowrun creators were not sued is because it was a less litigious era; if such a monumental lift of story elements were to happen in today's climate, the lawyers would be billing hours before you could say "stimpack". It was most certainly not my intention to start an edit war; do you think it would be alright for me to leave the wikilink in the "See also" section if I remove the phrase ""inspired by Neuromancer"? Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you should use your own judgment as to what would be best. I'm just warning you that the point (and the link) might be removed later for the reasons stated in that aforementioned edit summary, unless you can provide some sort of external published reference to a link between the game and the novel. I have no inclination to take it back out, but someone else might. I guess we'll just have to see if it stays in the article :) - Vedexent (talk) - 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've adjusted according to what I think is best infomationally, and to satisfy any further requests for citations. I'd like to find a citation for Gibson's opinion of the game; I found one earlier, and now I can't seem to find it...heh. Thanks for your help! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue X - December 2006
Project news
Current proposals and discussions

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spartan and Athenian userboxes!

Hi Vedexent!

You seem to be the most active fellow in the Classical warfare task force, so I thought I'd bring my idea to you.

I've been thoroughly fascinated with Classical Greece for some time now, especially the wars between Athens and Sparta. I've participated in a great number of debates about such wars, normally about the Peloponnesian Wars and the Persian invasions of the 5th century BCE, and during this time, I've developed a slant toward the Spartans, almost in the same fashion in which people may develop a slant toward a specific football team.

Since many people whom I've discussed this topic with have a similar such slant, usually toward either the Spartans or Athenians, I thought, well, why not make a userbox for it on Wikipedia? Perhaps similar people would like to display such slants on their userpages. So I did, a few moments ago. They look a little base, and the page which they link to (which also tries to explain this issue) looks quite sad, but hey, it's still just an idea. If you wouldn't mind giving me your thoughts, I'd be most appreciative.

Here are the userboxes themselves:

This user is a Spartan.
This user is an Athenian.


Thanks! ~ Maximilli, 03:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proofread

Hi Vedexent

Could you proofread and perhaps correct the writing of Roman-Spartan War before I'm going to get my fillip at FAC.

Thanks Wandalstouring 19:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XI - January 2007
Project news

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 00:34, 24 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 11:46, 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] Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics

Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:43, 8 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 15:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XII - February 2007
Project news
  • The new consolidated review department—combining the existing project peer review and A-Class review with a listing of project articles undergoing various external featured content candidacies and reviews—is now operational.
  • Two new templates have been introduced:
  • An effort is being made to have task forces maintain annotated bibliographies for their topic areas; several task forces have already begun to construct them.
  • The project reached two important milestones this month: 500 active members and 30,000 articles in the assessment system.
  • A military version of Wikipe-tan has been created; a new userbox featuring one of the images is available for interested project members.
From the coordinators

The third project coordinator elections have now concluded. Seven coordinators have been selected to serve for the next six months:

Carom (talk • contribs)
FayssalF (talk • contribs)
Kirill Lokshin (talk • contribs)
Kyriakos (talk • contribs)
LordAmeth (talk • contribs)
Petercorless (talk • contribs)
Wandalstouring (talk • contribs)

Congratulations to the winners, and thanks to all of the candidates who put themselves forward for this responsibility, and to the retiring coordinators for all of their efforts to improve the project!

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals and discussions
  • {{Infobox National Military}} is being developed to replace the old {{Military}} template; comments on the draft version are welcome.
  • A proposal to introduce a category tree for military campaigns, as well as a number of associated classification guidelines, is being discussed; comments would be very appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

Delivered by grafikbot 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do you have any texts on roman military?

Hi, I'm working on Structural history of the Roman military‎ at the moment but really struggling to find concrete info on Roman military structure from the later empire (150 AD onwards). I appreciate that it isn't as well documented in the primary sources for a start and that most people's research nowadays is into the republic and early empire but there must be something out there on the later empire. Do you have any texts at all that you think would be helpful that you can either recommend for purchase or else that you would be willing to scan for me to have a look at? Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/d/User_talk%7EVedexent_archive2_2d50.html"