Jump to content

User talk:Nik Sage

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Nik Sage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, 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!  FreplySpang 09:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:OttomanHorseArcher.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:OttomanHorseArcher.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. 01:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

[edit]

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 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin

[edit]

I think you should merge what you put in the new Javelin article into the Pilum article and then redirect to the second article from the first. This seems to be the current consensus since the Javelin disambiguation page currently does this. Hatch68 06:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin is not a Pilum

[edit]

I specifically started a new article because the Javelin search took me to Pilum. Pilum is a type of heavy javelin but javelin is not a type of Pilum like Sarissa is a type of pike but pike is not a type of Sarisssa. There were numerous types of javelins along the ages and the Pilum was only one of them. The Pilum is not a group name, not even in classical times, not even in the Roman army and should not be considered as such. Nik Sage 06:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but make sure you add references quickly to back up your statements or you'll likely get called on it quickly. Hatch68 06:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No probles, thanks for the advice (I'm quite new here as a writer). 06:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pike

[edit]

I disagree that Pike (weapon) is the "one major meaning" that most people would be looking for if they typed in Pike. I, and most people I know, would be far more likely to want Pike (fish). I think between the fish and the weapon, that'll take care of most people, but I can also see someone wanting to know about Zebulon Pike but not knowing his first name.

In other words; I strongly disagree with the move of Pike to Pike (disambiguation) and the re-directing of Pike to Pike (weapon). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the term pike originally came from medieval French pique "a spear, pikeman," from piquer "to pick, prick, pierce," from O.Fr. pic "sharp point or spike," perhaps ultimately from a Germanic or Celtic source. Alternate explanation traces O.Fr. word to Latin picus "woodpecker." Also developed from O.E. pic "pointed object, pickaxe." Pike, pick, and pitch were formerly used indifferently in Eng. The name of the fish is derived from the weapon and it was probably short for pike-fish, a special use of the term pike (weapon) in reference to the fish's long, pointed jaw (as written in wiki's Pike (fish)). If swordfish will ever be shorted to just sword it will still be named after the weapon and not vice versa. The same goes for the relation between javelin (weapon) and javelin throw (sport) or javelin and lance as ancient weapons in relation with modern weapons with the same name. When I wrote "one major meaning" I meant a basic primary meaning which is more important than others, not the only meaning. That's why wiki has its disambiguation pages (like in shiled, armour, lance, saber and other general terms for weapons which are the primary use of the word). Nik Sage 15:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll give you that the use of the word to mean the weapon came first, but you still have not given a reason for moving the disambiguation to Pike (disambiguation) and redirecting Pike to Pike (weapon). The purpose of disambiguation is to allow a reader to quickly find the article they are looking for, and having the disambiguation page at Pike makes it far easier on readers then having the weapon there. Before, if you wanted the fish, or Zebulon, you'd have typed in "Pike", hit "Go" and scanned the first few lines of the DAB page and said, "huh, there it is." Same for the weapon. Now it's easier on people wanting the weapon but harder on people wanting the fish or Zebulon. With all the other weapons you mentioned the weapon is what people typing it in are most likely to want. With Pike, it's at least pretty evenly divided between people wanting the weapon, people wanting the fish, people wanting Zebulon and the mountain named after him, and people wanting one of the zillions of other possibilities on that page. Look at Table, the dab page is housed at Table, not Table (disambiguation). I think Pike is at least as ambiguous, if not more so, than Table. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, but as I arleady mentioned with lance, the weapon is more significant and principal for the term then the Lance misslie and surely more important then Lance the pokemon. Lets go backwards, Table has two major meanings, i.e. a furniture and an information displayed in a matrix. You can't choose one over the other in that case so the term sends you to the disambiguation page. All other meanings are secondary and so if Table wouldn't have one of the obove mentioned meanings the term would have sent you directly to the other notwithstanding all other meanings (e.g. Chair which takes you to that and not to Chair (disambiguation). The Zebulon example is also an insufficient one because people's name that contains a known noun will always be secondary to the term (e.g. cross, silver and Lance when searching for Lance Armstrong etc.). Now for the fish. Like in Silver which people may search for as a colour (a common use), they will get to the chemical element. But since you claim that Pike is quite common around people who know their fishes I've added a direct reference in Pike. Please inform me if it is sufficient in your opinion. Nik Sage 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The direct reference to Pike the fish is helpful; and I'm tempted to say it's sufficient. However, I think it'd be helpful to get a third opinion in this matter, just to see what others think; so I'm going to post a note at WP:3O. At this point though, whatever the third opinion says is fine with me because with the additional link to the fish it's almost as easy to get there as when it was a dab page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W:3O

[edit]

Vroom! Hi, guys, I saw this at 3O. My own opinion is that a search for "Pike" should take us to the disambig page, largely because the etymology seems fairly irrelevant. Both the weapon and the fish are often referred to with little preference over the other, so disambig seems most appropriate.

Interestingly enough, my very excellent dictionary gives the fish as the primary meaning, and the fish gets more google hits than does the weapon. It would seem as though the fish definition is, in fact, the term in more common usage. On the other hand, I do not feel that the disparity in everyday usage is so great that one should be favoured over the other, so I go for the disambig. Hope this is helpful. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 20:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moreschi and ONUnicorn. If you want to take it to vote it's fine by me, I'll accept the majority rule (I love that about wiki). But as I said previously the fish is called like that because of its similarity to the weapon much like swordfish, seahorse, sea star and so on. The fish was called pike fish and it was shortened to pike. Besides the name of the fish is nicknamed pike so its should also be considered (although I guess no one uses Esox). Popularity tests in google are acceptable but not always appropriate. When searching for lance you get Lance Armstrong more then the weapon. There are of course many more examples. In my opinion if there is a primary use to the term you use it and refer everything else to the disambig page (like in Silver) and I think the weapon is the primary use for pike (much like the chemical element is the primary over all other including the colour). Moreschi, I would like to get your opinion about my claims. Nik Sage 01:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw the posting at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Mine is this: a word with so many meanings and usages should be used only for the name of the disambiguation page, regardless of passionate arguments from javelin partisans, fish partisans, cheerleaders, or residents of towns named Pike . Priority or pride of place can be justified for none of them. Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I am the person who originally overhauled the Pike page (weapon, not fish). The weapons term is certainly not the default in common English parlance. Larry Dunn 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite happy to see this, particularly as, at the time, my lovely rhetoric's perfect summing-up was stepped on almost immediately! Thank you. Athænara ✉ 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athænara. I can't agree with you on that. There are more words with different meanings that go for the primary use of the term then those which goes to the disambig page. A few random choices car, york, mouse, paris, hammer and many, many more. I've put a reference for the fish in the weapon page (see pike), to cover both meanings like they did in Silver regarding the colour. Do you think it is not enough?Nik Sage 01:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nik. Please re-read my post. You are a partisan. You need to NPoV your PoV for the encyclopedia here. Athænara ✉
Hi Athænara. I'm quite new here, so I didn't really understand your statements. I try to use NPoV in every edit and especially in this argument. I know I'm a partisan for the weapon meaning but what exactly are you asking me to do? I've read most of the NPoV and WP:3O pages, but still not sure what I'm suppose to be doing now. Should I let the discussion go on without me? Is it all in my talk page? Can I answer new arguments? Where is the WP:3O pike post? I'll be much obliged if you'll answer my questions and educate me about the proper conduct in these matters. Nik Sage 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nik. As per the intention stated here with the comment, "whatever the third opinion says is fine with me," ONUnicorn posted the request on Wikipedia:Third opinion (19:56, 12 January 2007 UTC diff). After a third opinion was provided, it was removed (20:38, 12 January 2007 UTC diff) as per normal procedure. There's no vote, no prolonged discussion—simply requests for third opinions from Wikipedians who are not involved in the posted disputes.

Two such opinions from uninvolved parties have now been offered. The substance of these opinions is this: Pike should be the name of the disambiguation page.

Capturing, so to speak, the article name for the weapon, as you did (04:19, 12 January 2007 UTC diff) is contrary not only to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but also to, for example, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, as is putting the weapon at the top of the Pike disambiguation page, separate from and above all the other terms.

As to your question, "what I'm suppose to be doing now" ... that would be heeding the advice you have been given :-)   Undo the drastic changes you made, or ask someone else to undo them for you. The etymology which you marshalled in your arguments will undoubtedly make the Pike (weapon) article more interesting. And, please, don't move any more pages for awhile. Athænara ✉ 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki etiquette

[edit]

Hi Athaenara, I think we've finished the pike discussion but I still had a few more questions so I moved to your talk page. First of all the changes I made were all done in good faith and from a sincere effort to keep a NPoV. I've changed it back but I still think it shouldn't be like that. Can I go to a higher editing instance then the WP3O? Like users vote or something? I'll probably loose since most people seems to know more about the fish then the weapon but I want to make my case somewhere. Now for wiki etiquette. If I want to move a page is there a recomended procedure to do so? I'll be much obliged if you'll counsel me since I'm quite a new editor. Hope it's not too much trouble for you.Nik Sage • Talk 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm already bugging you then I'll ask another question. If I want to change the name of an article where do I go to? (I know it's a similar question but not the same). Nik Sage • Talk 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nik—You edited my talk page six times to post this. Please don't do that. Use "Show preview" instead. I've moved your post back here where the existing discussion began.
Addressing your points/questions:
(1) I don't doubt your good faith.
(2) No, you haven't changed it back. Please do so.
(3) Wikipedia:Help desk and Wikipedia:Village pump are excellent resources. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes describes existing resolution processes, of which W:3O is one.
(4) Reading Help:Moving a page would have been the best first step, after which, if you had still desired the change, opening discussion on the talk page of the page you wanted to move would have been second.
I think this is as much help as I have to offer. Athænara ✉ 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response
(1) Thanks.
(2) I did. Look at Pike. Did I forget something?
(3) I have a slight RTFM syndrome
(4) See (3)
Thanks dude and sorry for the six edits Nik Sage 19:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In re (2), I had thought (wrongly, apparently) that the disambig page originally had the one word name Pike. Do work on that RTFM syndrome! It would have prevented all of this. —Æ. ✉ 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Turkish bow

[edit]

You seem to be interested in archery and medieval weaponry, i was the one who attempted to expand the Turkish bow stub with the time i had, and i saw your contributions, would you be able to update some new pictures if possible? Thanks!! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.110.65.230 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, I'm now working on javelin but after I'll finish I plan to really expand the Turkish bow article with content and pictures. I'm glad to see another enthusiast for Turkish bows (there's not a lot of us). Nik Sage 23:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you not registered to Wikipedia? You have very important fields of knowledge. Not enough people know about steppe people like the Xiongnu. Maybe you'll help write the article about the Euroasian steppe Nik Sage 23:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a university student doing a Biomedical Engineering course, and that is keeping me really busy, and i believe i spend a lot of time on wikipedia as an unregistered user, and if i do register that i won't be able to get off of Wikipedia so, im trying not to spend too much time on it, even though sometimes its inevitable :P. Im glad there are people like you who are interested in the steppe culture and try to present it to the rest of the world through Wikipedia. I'll be glad to help you in the Euroasian steppe article when I have time to lift my head off my uni work :D. Goodluck with your articles in wikipedia.

Thanks dude. I think you can register and put the same amount of time you do now. Registration doesn't compel you to write anything just make it easy to identify you, but you can do whatever you want. Anyway you contact me whenever you like through this talk page or via email. Nik Sage 12:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Spear

[edit]

This is a translation issue. as the item itself has no physical being. The word you are using isn't a word in Old Norse, and looking at the usage of the time - a forked throwing spear; see below.

[Origin: 1505–15; < MF javeline, by suffix alter. from javelot, AF gavelot, gaveloc, prob. < OE gafeluc, *gafeloc ≪ British Celtic *gablākos presumably, a spear with a forklike head; cf. MIr gablach forked branch, javelin, MWelsh gaflach (appar. < OIr), deriv. of OIr gabul fork, forked branch, c. Old Breton gabl, Welsh gafl]. Thor Templin 23:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is beside the point. Javelin is a category of pole weapons not a name of a specific weapon. Armour, dagger, pike, lance and many others are also categories of weapons eventhough none of their names come from old Norse. Sword and shield names come from old Norse and still you use it to describe the Xiphos, the Kopis, the Scimitar and also the Hoplon, the Pelte, the Scutum etc.. Gungnir is a javelin by function (always thrown never used for thrusting). Furthermore we know it is a javelin by Odin's nicknames. A few of them contain words that mean spears that are used just for throwing and not for thrusting. This type of spear ar javelins, the same as long thrusting spears that are used from horseback are lances and long thrusting spears that are used by infantry phalanxes are pikes. BTW spear comes from old high German and was probably originated in old Norse. In German and in Dutch speer means javelin while stange means spear in German. Last but not least the javelin was the ancient Norsemen main weapon, not the spear. Nik Sage 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using more modern descriptors for ancient weapons and symbols. The two are not workable together. You yourself describe a javelin as a throwing spear, meaning that a javelin is a type of spear, so all javelins are spears. As there is no complete account of how Odin's weapon was used (he did have a horse afterall, and a spear on horseback would be used as a thrusting weapon), one cannot describe the subtype of spear that it was. Further, looking at the PIE roots of the weapon, it is more symbolic than anything else. Mythology and military technology are also not interchangable. Thor Templin 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Mongols and other mounted troops

[edit]

Perhaps you are interested in working with an editor who has a similar interest on mounted archers etc. User:oldwindybear. We could really improve our existing articles, especially on the Mongols and at least start to cover a bit all the wars and warriors in the Eurasian steppe. Wandalstouring 20:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am. Since I've joined wikipedia I focused most of my efforts in writing new cold weapons articles and expanding old ones but my main field of interest concern the Mongols, the Turks and other horse-archer warriors. I'll be glad to work with someone who is knowledgeable in those areas. Since you're a military history project coordinator I will be much obliged if you'll coordinate these efforts. It's always nice to meet other military history freaks. Nik Sage 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Hi, Nik Sage. You're increasing the sizes of the images in such a way that they clutter the articles. Please, bring them to 250px or 300px, since the articles are turned out to be image galleries. Thanks. E104421 10:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi. I have to agree with E104421 - pictures that are too large do clutter articles. You are right that pictures at Pike (weapon) shouldn't be too small, but at the same time, when I resized them they were still effective illustration. The Landsknecht "push of pike" image is much too large at the moment, and the only one that could have stood to being enlarged was the "pike and shot" formation. The rest do not suffer from being scaled down. --Grimhelm 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see big pictures in articles so you can really see their content and their relation to the written content (especially in maps and in military units images) and I always try to enlarge pictures in a way that does not disturb the format of the article. Nevertheless I now understand that large pictures disturb some readers so I'll adhere to the 300px policy from now on (unless it is a picture in the top of the article that sometimes can be enlarged almost without no effect on the format of the article). Nik Sage 13:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you want to resize some of the pictures in the pike article, then do so (I don't have the heart to do it myself). Nik Sage 13:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I resized them, but except for the Flemish pikes I have left them larger than my initial resizing. None are now smaller than 300px, because I don't think their current size affects the article structure in any negative way. They should still fulfill their illustrative purpose. --Grimhelm 14:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've resized them further, as they are still just too large and interrupt the ability of the reader to view the text. If readers want to see them, they can just click on them.
I've also deleted an irrelevant image, that of the Macedonian sarissophoroi, which doesn't belong in an article about pike usage from the High Middle Ages on. There is a page on the sarissa, which you have noted, as the image is there too. BTW, that image is almost assuredly under copyright, and it's probably a copyright violation to have it on wikipedia. It seems to be an image created for a book -- I'd argue that it's not fair use to use it, as it's not an excerpt of text from a book, but rather an entire image currently under someone's copyright.Larry Dunn 16:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the image from a lecture, sitting on a web server belonging to the Univeristy of Texas at Austin. It seems like a decent place that would not infringe copyright. The deletion of the Sarissa picture from the pike article stems from a misunderstanding about the relation between the term sarissa and pike. The Sarissa is a type of a pike weapon. The Pike is a category of weapons just like sword, lance, spear, javelin, dagger etc.. Not to write about the sarissa in an article about pike weapons is the same as not writing about the gladius in the sword article, the pilum in the javelin article and the scutum in the shield article. The implementation of the sarissa in the Macedonian and Hellenistic phalanxes should be mentioned just as the use of pikes in the Schiltron and the Landsknecht's formation. BTW the term sarrisophoroi is "sarissa wielder" and is mentioned in connection with cavalry armed with sarissas, not infantry (for examples see Arrian). Nik Sage 18:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone else is using an image does not ipso facto mean that it is appropriate for wikipedia. There are scanned images all over the internet that are copyright violations, but that isn't a rationale for including them on wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own rules, and I am fairly certain that this image is a scan from a book and still under copyright, so the description of the image in wikimedia is probably incorrect.
The article about pikes in wikipedia is an article about the European use of the pike. "Pike" is a European term, used even by the Germans (pik, in addition to the normal term spear (spiess)). It's not the only European term, but that's basically it, and so on Wikipedia, it's a perfectly appropriate way to refer to the European usage of very long spears, wielded in both hands. There is a separate page for the classical usage of the sarissa by infantry. Classical use of the sarissa and European use of the pike were far from identical, so they don't need to be on the same page from that perspective. There also is no need to make the argument that there was historical development. The sarissa was used by infantry blocks for a few centuries by Hellenistic armies, and then disappeared (mostly) around 150BC. It subsequently developed, completely independently, in Europe starting after 1000AD. There's no continuity or commonality there. The current split makes sense. Larry Dunn 21:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is taken from a the University of Texas web server. It is highly unlikely that this esteemed University would allow copyright infringement, but that has become the minor topic of our discussion. You've claimed the article about the pike is "an article about the European use of the pike". And Macedon is in Antarctica? However even if Macedonia were in Antarctica it wouldn't change a thing. I was probably wasn't clear enough in my last post so I'll try to say it more clearly now. Pike is a category of weapons, just like lance, javelin, sword, bow, battle axe, warhammer and so on. Sarissa is a pike, just like Doru is spear, Akontio is a javelin, Xiphos is a sword and Aspis is a shield. You also said that the "classical use of the sarissa and European use of the pike were far from identical, so they don't need to be on the same page from that perspective". Well, the use of the Gladius is very different from the use of the Longsword which is very different from the use of the Rapier, but they are all under the category of swords and their use will be under the common umbrella of swordsmanship. BTW your statement is erroneous in another level. The use of the sarissa by the Macedonian phalanx much resembles the use of the pike in the Swiss Keil. Furthermore the Swiss Keil is very different from the traditional Scottish Schiltron and from the circular Schiltron used in Falkirk and Bannockburn. The development of pikemen in Scotland and in the Swiss cantons is completely unattached and there were no continuity or commonality there. Both Oman and Delbruck include the sarissa and the swiss and Landsknechte's pikes under the category of pike weapons (Delbruck refers to these weapons and other pikes as belonging to a long spear category). Oman is clearly saying that prototype of the Swiss' 15th century pike formations was the Macedonian phalanx. However even if there was no historical development between the Macedonian phalanx and the Swiss keil, an argument I haven't made in my previous posts (although other distinguished historians did), both had the commonality of arms, formation and tactics and therefore should me mentioned in the same article. The Japanese Katana subsequently developed, completely independently from the Roman Gladius and still they are both swords. The sames goes for the Katana and the Sabre which are both swords of the same basic design, i.e. backswords. Finally, I will refer to your comment that "'pike' is a European term". Almost all of the weapon's categry names are European terms. Sword, spear, shield and bow all come from Proto Germanic but even people who were not linguistics and didn't know the etymology of these words used sword, spear, shield and bow. I'm not against different articles for the Macedonian phalanx and the Swiss kiel but in the pike (weapon) article there sould both be presented (with text and pictures) because both formations wielded pikes. Nik Sage 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing articles

[edit]

Since you are interested about military history and so on, could have have a look at some lists of missing articles about Military and Warfare and Weaponry - Skysmith 11:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read your lists. Picked a few topics to work on. Aren't Hypastis (see User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Military and Warfare#Historical military units) the same thing as Hypaspists? Nik Sage 13:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. Different spelling apparently - Skysmith 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

[edit]

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 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

peer review request

[edit]

Hi, I have recently submitted the article Campaign history of the Roman military‎, which I have been working on, for peer review, hoping to hammer it into shape based on feedback, prior to self-nominating it for featured article status. Since you are listed on the MILHIST classical task force as having an interest in the Roman military, and appear to be currently active on wikipedia, I would be extremely grateful if you could spare some time to post your comments on improving the article at the peer review page. I hope you forgive me for contacting you directly. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 10:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dude, I'll be happy to help in any way needed. Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

[edit]

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 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verutum

[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Verutum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. RJASE1 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJASE1, sorry but I completely forgot about that article. I improved it and will further do so in the near future. If you still desire to delete the article please inform me beforehand. For the meantime I removed the prod template. Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian steppe

[edit]

According to this, you redirected Eurasian steppe to Euro-Asian Steppe. Of the forms in use, your choice is the least in use, by a factor of more than thirty thousand. A simple comparison of ghits:

  • Eurasian steppe: 31,900
  • Euroasian steppe: 95
  • Euro-Asian Steppe: 77

I don't know what your reasoning was for changing it, but I recommend changing it back, and remember also that Wikipedia form, with few exceptions as for proper names, has only the first word capitalised in article titles. — Athænara ✉ 03:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athænara, I didn't check the net for the term before starting it (I know I still didn't write anything major, was quite busy), since it's a highly narrow field of research (which I'm part of) so I've used the common term as I know it. Nevertheless I've checked my books and articles and all the the examples mentioned above are there, but the first serious research (Grousset) uses Eurasian so I'll change it to that. Now for the capitalization, I'd like your advice. Some sources write "steppe" capitalized some don't and some interchange so I'm not sure what to do. There are a lot of steppes but this is the big one, THE STEPPE, so I think it should be capitalized, but again I have both versions in my sources. I've noticed that Mongol Empire is twice capitalized so I think it's the same but I would like to hear your opinion. Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 11:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I don't know how to move a page to an already created page, so I would also need your advice on that. Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 11:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Have you tried the undo function? BTW, have you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles?)
On this page, on 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC), I asked you, "please, don't move any more pages for awhile," yet this one was only three days later, at 05:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC). "For awhile" meant weeks or months, not hours or days. — Athænara ✉ 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Athænara. I don't know any undo function but I only want to move it from one title to another so it shouldn't be such a big deal. I don't think I own the article. I just created it since I felt it was missing. Furhermore I would be glad if other people will continue writing it since I'm now swamped with work. If you can find people to expand the article go right a head. I don't think I should stop moving pages for a while. It's better to do and err then not do at all. Wikipedia is completely peer reviewed so if people don't agree with something they usually are not shy to say it. Besides every editorial decision is reversible (quite easily). You as an experienced wikipedian should help novices know the technical procedures. Doing so will indulge me the knowledge on how to change and rechange pages more efficiently since I put most of my effort in writing new stuff and not in wikifying old stuff. The link I've changed was completely wrong since it lead to the Pontic steppe which is definitely not the Eurasian steppe and I didn't move any pages. I'll be happy if you'll lend me your obvious editorial and technical expertise but if you don't want to or have any spare time, I'll understand. Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 04:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Hungarian Plain

[edit]

Hi – About the Little Hungarian Plain, I must admit I'm not a geography expert, but it strikes me as strange that it should be considered part of the Eurasian steppe, since it is surrounded by hills (not very high ones, but still definitely not plains). So I thought you just added it to that category by accident. If you are certain about this point, feel free to revert me; in this case, it would make sense to also add a citation so that other editors don't remove the category again. Happy editing, KissL 08:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kissl. You're Hungarian right? The little alfold is considered part of the Eurasian steppe. You can add to the credibility of the article if you'll check the Internet in Hungarian (which I don't know). Try to find the term "puszta" connected with the little alföld. If there is puszta in the little alfold then it is a steppe. All the steppes of the Eurasian Steppe are separated with mountains. The Hungarian steppe is completely surrounded with mountains. Nevertheless it is considered the westernmost steppe in the belt of the Eurasian steppes. That's why the Huns, Avars and Magyars all set there bases there. I'll appreciate your help with the Hungarian confirmation (I use only English sources, although the greatest scholar in that area is Hungarian - Denis Sinor - I can only read his English articles) Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 12:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)~[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your excellent work on archaic weaponry and tactics at wikipedia - especially the etymologies. WeniWidiWiki 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations for your well-deserved award, Nik! (BTW, someone else fixed the Eurasian naming glitch not long after I asked you about it.) — Athænara ✉ 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military History elections

[edit]

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 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

[edit]

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 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

[edit]

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 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

[edit]

The April 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 14:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

[edit]

The May 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 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

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

[edit]

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 14:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Saw you proposed cqc be merged with hand-to-hand

[edit]

I don't think this is something that should be done, and it does not appear as though anybody else things hand-to-hand should be merged with cqc. Hand-to-hand is way to broad of a topic to merge cqc into it. I think the proposal should be removed from the top of the cqc page.User5802 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

punic wars

[edit]

Hi, I just finished an article about a battle, that occurred during the Second Punic war. Now I write to you and other members of the Classical warfare task force because it seems there already is a stub on the same subject, but, as I think, with the wrong name. The article I finished is battle of Canusium, the problematic stub - battle of Asculum (209 BC). According to the primary sources, that I cite (Livy, Plutarch), the battle actually occurred at Canusium. I would appreciate if you could solve this problem or advise me what to do. In my view the stub in question should be deleted and the Template:Campaignbox Second Punic War changed accordingly. Dobrin 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

[edit]

The December 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamics of the Xyston

[edit]

Dynamics of the Xyston

Dear Nik, 

I was interested in the discussion about the deployment and use of the xyston.
From the several accounts I have read on the subject, the xyston has been described as a heavy

cavalry spear used by Macedonian horsemen. its characteristics are, a spear approximately 10 - 12 feet

( 3 - 3.5 mts ) long with a large leaf bladed head and a spiked butt end.

As a horse rider, I have experimented with some reproductions to understand the dynamics of wielding such a weapon. 

Of course, consideration must be made concerning the abilities of the horseman, given that he had no stirrups or a saddle,any impact with the weapon could compromise the stability of the rider.

After various trials, I found that any two handed method completely difficult to execute, although targeting proved better. Any impact or embedding of the spear either unseated or twisted the spear out of my hands.

The Best approach was to hold the spear one handed, extended out, forward and low. Speed and the weight of the spears momentum carries the impacted target backwards and so lessoned the impact to the rider.Consequently the target fell to the ground, approximately 5 -6 ft below the riders arm allowing the spear to rotate freely around the balance point of the spear held in the carriers hand. AS the horse continues forward the spear rotates backwards and allows the rider the tug it free with a fully extended backward facing arm.

In conclusion, the heavier the spear, the less impact to the rider and his arm and at 25MPH allows considerable damage to the target. A broad head reduces the penetration ( a consideration for all lances and cavalry spears )and the possibility of entanglement .

The balance point should not exceed the hight of the riders arm to the ground or the spear will jerk upwards as it rotates causing the rider to lose grip or be unseated.

You cannot strike over hand! unless you wish to dislocate your shoulder and or lose the spear at contact.

lastly, should the spear be broken during impact or cut, the spiked butt becomes a formidable weapon with sufficient ' reach ' something all horsemen understand when several feet of the ground. 

In essence, the xyston, as described fits the bill exactly and not something I would like to be on the receiving end of !

Phil881954


Bold textItalic textInternal linkExternal link (remember http:// prefix)Level 2 headlineEmbedded imageMedia file linkMathematical formula (LaTeX)Ignore wiki formattingYour signature with timestampHorizontal line (use sparingly)RedirectStrikeLine breakSuperscriptSubscriptSmallInsert hidden CommentInsert a picture galleryInsert block of quoted textInsert a tableInsert a reference Subject/headline:

Subject/headline preview: (Dynamics of the Xyston) Dear Nik, I was interested in the discussion about the deployment and use of the xyston. From the several accounts I have read on the subject, the xyston has been described as a heavy cavalry spear used by Macedonian horsemen. its characteristics are, a spear approximately 10 - 12 feet ( 3 - 3.5 mts ) long with a large leaf bladed head and a spiked butt end. As a horse rider, I have experimented with some reproductions to understand the dynamics of wielding such a weapon. Of course, consideration must be made concerning the abilities of the horseman, given that he had no stirrups or a saddle,any impact with the weapon could compromise the stability of the rider. After various trials, I found that any two handed method completely difficult to execute, although targeting proved better. Any impact or embedding of the spear either unseated or twisted the spear out of my hands. The Best approach was to hold the spear one handed, extended out, forward and low. Speed and the weight of the spears momentum carries the impacted target backwards and so lessoned the impact to the rider.Consequently the target fell to the ground, approximately 5 -6 ft below the riders arm allowing the spear to rotate freely around the balance point of the spear held in the carriers hand. AS the horse continues forward the spear rotates backwards and allows the rider the tug it free with a fully extended backward facing arm. In conclusion, the heavier the spear, the less impact to the rider and his arm and at 25MPH allows considerable damage to the target. A broad head reduces the penetration ( a consideration for all lances and cavalry spears )and the possibility of entanglement . The balance point should not exceed the hight of the riders arm to the ground or the spear will jerk upwards as it rotates causing the rider to lose grip or be unseated. You cannot strike over hand! unless you wish to dislocate your shoulder and or lose the spear at contact. lastly, should the spear be broken during impact or cut, the spiked butt becomes a formidable weapon with sufficient ' reach ' something all horsemen understand when several feet of the ground. In essence, the xyston, as described fits the bill exactly and not something I would like to be on the receiving end of !

Phil881954 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process

[edit]

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 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

[edit]
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 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Missile weapons

[edit]

Category:Missile weapons, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

[edit]

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

[edit]

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

[edit]

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

[edit]

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

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 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

[edit]

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

The September 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 fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

[edit]

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be my e-pal

[edit]

Hello

My name is Nicholas and I share many interests with you including ancient history, ancient military history and ancient middle eastern civilizations. My other interests include American politics and culture and computers and computer games. I live in North Yorkshire in England, am studying for a masters degree in classics, and applying for PhD funding.

Perhaps we could be E-pals. We certainly share many interests and I find it is good to have friends who share similar interests.

If this is acceptable please e-mail me at: stillglen0@gmail.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Nic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicg1883 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurlbat

[edit]

Hey there. I've seen your contribs to that article and was wondering if you know of any primary sources attesting the use of hurlbats in mediaeval times. Best, Trigaranus (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trigaranus. I haven't been inside this page for a really long time. I don't remember any specific mentions of hurlbats in the sources, but I can check it up. Best, Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick -- any checking done in the meantime? Sorry I almost forgot about this. But I have not found any historical hurlbats online and was wondering if you've found something in another place. Trigaranus (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]
Hello since you are interested in ancient warfare , i would like to ask you if you would like to contribute here Dacian warfare.Thankou.Megistias (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Megistias. Sorry for the delayed response but I haven't checked this page for a really long time. I don't know enough about Dacia warfare to help with this essay. Sorry. Nik Sage (talk/contrib) 19:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Elbistan

[edit]

Hi Nik Sage. I undid your redirect at this article because this type of cut and paste move erases the page's history. You can read more about this at Help:Moving a page, specifically this section. If you'd like to move the page to Battle of Abulustayn, we can discuss it at the talk page. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. Continued the discussion on your page (need to ask some more questions). Nik Sage (talk/contrib)17:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied there (in case you've not watchlisted. :) ) Kafka Liz (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... haven't forgotten this. Things are a bit hectic my end, but I hope to have a more thoughtful comment in a day or so. Sorry to leave you hanging, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Schwartz

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Adi Schwartz, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.adi-schwartz.com/biography.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Adi Schwartz, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.adi-schwartz.com/biography/, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Adi Schwartz saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't know you're not allowed to copy a bio from a blog. I'll rewrite the article. Nik Sage (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio & biographies

[edit]

Hi Nik, Copyright violations and biographies of living people are the two things that Wikipedia is most strict about, and we all get slapped very heavily on the wrist for even the most innocent mistakes in those areas. I would suggest that you take a moment to read up on the policies at WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:RS with WP:V and to follow the links your were given in the welcome message. Collaborative writing has its downside and as a result some of those policy pages are difficult to relate to, so if you find anything hard to understand, don't hesitate to ask me o my talk page. Oh, and by the way, please consider completing the required edit summaries - it would make it much easier for other editors to jump in and give you a hand. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung, thanks for the offer of help. I don't write a lot - and I usually contribute to already written articles. It's a new experience for me to write new bio articles from scratch. I'll definitely take you up on your offer of help. Nik Sage (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of UNRWA employees

[edit]

Actually, to be honest, there's not really much to thank me for; AWB did that automatically while I was doing a tagging run, and I wouldn't even have noticed (or known what to do) either if I'd had to do that manually. As for the article's name, though, I see that it got moved to another title anyway; the principle on here is that "redirects are cheap", so you don't have to choose between "employees" or "officials" because there's no requirement that you choose only one redirect. If you think "officials" would be a useful redirect to have, you can do it regardless of whether the "employees" redirect exists or not, because pages can have as many redirects as the editors who create them need or want. Hope that helps. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to choose the most appropriate title (and redirects the less good one). BTW, following your lead I've just requested registration to AWB (it sounds like an excellent tool).

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia

[edit]
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shock unit

[edit]

The article Shock unit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content. No current editing. Largely duplicates Shock tactics

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Monstrelet (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

[edit]


To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

[edit]

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

[edit]

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign of the Mallians

[edit]

I noticed you were into some Macedonian stuff. Please check out my page and make some suitable edits. And make some comments about what you think I could do to improve the article also. I do desire to improve the article significantly. SteveMooreSmith3 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

[edit]

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Close combat

[edit]

The article Close combat has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Failedwizard (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ikta

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ikta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ikta

[edit]

The article Ikta has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

nonnotable name

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kerowyn Leave a note 05:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military Historian of the Year

[edit]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

Military history coordinator election

[edit]

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) 09:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Spear article

[edit]

Hi, not sure if you're still an active editor. If so I'm trying to drum up some editors to help me with the article spear, as the most commonly used weapon in history it's significance cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately the article itself is in need of work, in many cases because the spear is such a ubiquitous tool that is has been used in virtually every country and theatre of war it needs additional content to reflect this wide and varied use. You seem to have a fairly wide knowledge in areas that could use some work, if you could help I'd really appreciate it. Master z0b (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Euroasia for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Euroasia 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/Euroasia 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cold weapon

[edit]

The article Cold weapon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet notability guideline, appwars to be a neologism or translated fireign word not used in English

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cold weapon for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cold weapon 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/Cold weapon (2nd nomination) 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. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

[edit]

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

[edit]

Hello, Nik Sage. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User group for Military Historians

[edit]

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]

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive

[edit]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon

[edit]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced

[edit]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon

[edit]

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cold weapon for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cold weapon 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/Cold weapon (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nik_Sage&oldid=1259897990"