| Revision as of 05:44, 20 September 2006 editLarry Dunn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,899 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:29, 21 September 2006 edit undoJCScaliger (talk | contribs)1,061 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| :Cataphracts have nothing whatsoever to do with European knights, technologically or otherwise. The knight's panoply developed very slowly and gradually from the simple chain shirt and helmet worn by German warriors since the late Roman period.] 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | :Cataphracts have nothing whatsoever to do with European knights, technologically or otherwise. The knight's panoply developed very slowly and gradually from the simple chain shirt and helmet worn by German warriors since the late Roman period.] 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :If you would care to discuss the matter, either my talkpage or ] would be appropriate. There are also various means of mediation; see ]. ] 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | :If you would care to discuss the matter, either my talkpage or ] would be appropriate. There are also various means of mediation; see ]. ] 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::This is the third time today you have reverted sourced materal, and inflicted pointless collateral damage. Please stop; reversion is intended to deal with obvious vandalism, not with an edit discussion. | |||
| ::This is as short as I can make this subject without being misleading: ''ministeriales'' existed across Europe, not just in Germany; many of them were "freemen"; and most of them were not knights. These largely escape Arnold's treatment, except for occasional comparisons; but he is writing on a limited subject, compared with the present article. ] 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:29, 21 September 2006
Edit summaries
Someone has reverted your changes to Knight. When you're removing a major chunk of content, edit summaries and/or discussion on the talk page can help — I didn't realize what you were doing until I looked at your contributions and saw the edits to Sassanid army and so forth. Choess 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Military history?
As you seem to have an interest in military history, might I be able to persuade you to join the Military history WikiProject? Having someone else around with an interest in the Italian Wars—even if only tangential—would be very nice! Kirill Lokshin 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, that would be great, but I can't send you an e-mail right now -- I'll add an e-mail address and then gey back to you!
- That'll be fine; or you can just sign up on the member list directly. Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
- Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
- Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
- Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
- Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
- Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Misplaced Pages.
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 00:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Pike
Thank you very much for your updates of the "pike" article. There was a lot of good stuff in there, but the formatting was terrible before you standardized it. It's an important subject, so it's nice to have a proper page. Therealhazel 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggested edits
Larry, you have done a superb job of describing the history and use of pikes in this article, and I have complete respect for your expertise concerning this topic. The few edits I suggested earlier were made in good faith to help improve the wording or intended sense of your text, but in some cases these were misunderstandings on my part, for which I apologize. Your reverts in those cases are completely justifiable. In the latest round of edits I just offered, I hope you will agree that they either improve the point your were making, or help your wording to read more easily and understandably. For example, I suggest using "subunits using firearms", or something similar, instead of the generic term "shooters" that was used earlier in your text to describe a wide range of troops, including bowmen. Elsewhere, I suggest improving the contrast you were making between the close-combat nature of pikemen vs. the long-range lethality of troops armed with firearms; an excellent point that might be lost if left as worded before. In another instance, I suggest that redundant terms like "date" be elimated by using a different term, such as "time," or by rewriting the sentence, which I have done for this purpose. Finally, I suggest that "warfare" is an improvement over "warfighting" as a descriptive term for the activity you describe. All in all, these are corrections to minor nits that I think will improve your outstanding Wipipedia contribution on this subject. Jack Bethune 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you have any regard for my extensive expansion of this page, then do me the courtesy of allowing what are my word choices, rather than any incorrect use of English. I have accepted whatever suggestions you made which were clearly corrections of inaccuracies, as you can see. In my opinion, the remaining comments you are inserting do not strengthen the text I had added to this entry.Larry Dunn 02:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Knight
Please do not blindly revert extensive, and sourced, edits. If you object to my additions, please discuss on the talk page; that's what it's for. Since they are my understanding of Bloch, it would be nice to explain yourself.
- You might wish to follow your own advice -- you extensively reworked the page, including inaccurate revisions (such as the incorrect summary of Ministeriales as being Sergeants, which they surely were not -- see German Knighthood 1000-1300 by Benjamin Arnold), without any such discussion whatsoever.Larry Dunn 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Latin ministeriales = French sergents = German Dienstmaenner Bloch, Feudal Society p. 337, as cited. I will consult Arnold when I lay hands on a copy. In the meantime, four separate paragraphs on feudality and knighthood is three too many. JCScaliger 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Bloch is an old work, and not specific to the topic of German knighthood. Knowledge of medieval history has advanced greatly in the past 80 years, as a reading of Arnold will attest.Larry Dunn 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Latin ministeriales = French sergents = German Dienstmaenner Bloch, Feudal Society p. 337, as cited. I will consult Arnold when I lay hands on a copy. In the meantime, four separate paragraphs on feudality and knighthood is three too many. JCScaliger 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Btw, the technology, although not the social system, of knighthood, may well be influenced by the cataphract; they are attested from late Roman Gaul, most notably Ecdicius of Vienne. JCScaliger 17:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Cataphracts have nothing whatsoever to do with European knights, technologically or otherwise. The knight's panoply developed very slowly and gradually from the simple chain shirt and helmet worn by German warriors since the late Roman period.Larry Dunn 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you would care to discuss the matter, either my talkpage or Talk:Knight would be appropriate. There are also various means of mediation; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. JCScaliger 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is the third time today you have reverted sourced materal, and inflicted pointless collateral damage. Please stop; reversion is intended to deal with obvious vandalism, not with an edit discussion.
- This is as short as I can make this subject without being misleading: ministeriales existed across Europe, not just in Germany; many of them were "freemen"; and most of them were not knights. These largely escape Arnold's treatment, except for occasional comparisons; but he is writing on a limited subject, compared with the present article. JCScaliger 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)