This user may have left Wikipedia. WikieWikieWikie has not edited Wikipedia since 20 March 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
I appreciate your enthusiasm but to get anywhere with Wikipedia articles you'll have to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of which are counterintuitive. Take this, for example:
"He was a Viking prince, with some connections to legengendary pirates of Jomsborg, known as Jomsvikings, and the Bretwalda of the Anglo-Saxons, maybe, England's only true one."
This seems to me like it is original research. I've never seen Canute called Bretwalda elsewhere, let alone the only true one. On Wikipedia we have a policy that we should not do original research. Read WP:NOR. Haukur10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...Harald Bluetooth, his father, being the first Viking to accept the validity of the Chritian faith, and the belief in God's angels."
Try to avoid long literary sentences like that. Something more in Wikipedia-style would be "...Harald Bluetooth, his father, being the first Danish king to convert to Christianity". Haukur15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Well, I must say that I, being not the native speaker at all, had large difficulties in understanding some of your changes. Could you please break them into single sentences, without digressions et al? Szopen06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiWiki, PLEASE revise your edits. The sentences are too large and I can't understand them. Are you native speaker?
Szopen10:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have ade some improvement which I hope are enough.
It is interesting. I think it is untrustworthy though, as the interpretations of the evdince precariously hinge on the assumption of Cnut as a teenage Viking interloper on English shores. I really want to get a full list of original sources together so I might comprehenively analyse their compilations, for a book, King Knut and the Vikings. It is driving me over the edge with allthese poor analysis. If anyone wants to comment on the era of Cnut the Great, it should be with entirely solid evidence, or simply not at all. It is the Ottar the Black poem Knutsdrapa which is the cause of so much mistakeness. It is the key.
Please be careful when you upload images to Wikipedia. If the image is not in the public domain or licenced under a free licence (mostly GFDL or CC-BY-SA-2.X) then we most often shouldn't use it. And you can't assume that an image is in the public domain, you've got to be sure. The vast majority of websites out there do not have public domain images. A random Norwegian website is almost certainly not in the public domain. Images on the BBC website are not in the public domain. That a site doesn't explicitly specify its copyright terms or show the copyright sign is not an indication that it is in the public domain.
I know this can be tough and counterintuitive but to be effective at this you've got to read up on how things are done on Wikipedia. Otherwise you'll keep getting frustrated as you see your images deleted. Haukur10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention one thing. Artwork is in the public domain if more than 70 years have passed since the author's death. Photographs of such artwork which aim at accurately reproducing it are also in the public domain in the United States if the artwork is two-dimensional. So the picture Image:E&C-WinchesterCross.jpg, which you uploaded, actually is in the public domain since the artist is long dead and the photograph only aims at showing his two-dimensional artwork. It's a nice image too and it belongs in the article on Cut, so kudos for that. Haukur10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You remarked on my user page that "the lithosphere is in fact a part of the mantle", rather than the other way around. Where are you getting your definitions from? --Bejnar05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You got it almost right. The crust is not part of the mantle, the mantle is not part of the crust, but both are part of the lithosphere. The lithosphere is the larger unit. Check it out. The boundary between the crust and the mantle is called the Mohorovičić discontinuity. --Bejnar23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, well defined scientific terms are not a matter of debate. You are still not using terms in a standard geological way. You seem to understand the process, but not the jargon. Please read some standard geological textbooks, memories of lectures are not a sufficient substitute. If your lecturers at University have published, please refer expressly, directly, and specifically to their published works. Otherwise, please keep their ideas (if indeed it is not just your misinterpretation of what they said) off of the Wikipedia. Lithos does in fact refer to rock coming from Greek Λιθικός meaning stone. --Bejnar23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Land is not flat. (2) The earth includes the atmosphere which is quite different from the lithosphere, but they are both part of the earth. Now take that understanding and apply it to the mantle and the crust. They are different, however they are both part of the lithosphere. Now if you drop an ice cube in water it will sink and then rise because its density is (mostly) lighter than that of the water, but the initial force (in this case of gravity) drives it down lower than pure isostasy would suggest. In a similar manner, the convection currents drag material down; however, that material resurfaces due to its lighter density. (3) The crust does not "lay" on the mantle. Yes, it is above (in a gravity based definition) the mantle, but it doesn't lay there like a piece of paper. It floats more like an ice cube on water. (4) One does not refer to the oceanic lithosphere any more than one would refer to the grain of a tree. It is the grain of the wood and it is the oceanic crust. Question for you. Is there oceanic crust under the continental crust of a craton? --Bejnar01:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a good work on Canute the Great :o) I was wondering what happened to England and Canute's army after he died? --Arigato115:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I gather from the above you have made comments on the Jews and the gays as especially malfactory to the national wellbeing. I will not judge you, as I can see where you might be comeing from, and the interest in Cnut lets me think you are a person with honour and loyalty in your heart. All the same, if you want to think our troubles are all down to these people, who, as a whole, are scapegoats, understand this...Jews may be international money launderers, gays may wish to be blind to the pains of mankind, yet really, capitalism itself is international deceit, which drowns in people blind to the degradations which plague their existence. If it is capitalism of complete arse holes, content to shit all over their own people, it is especially the case. It don't matter if Hitler was a unifier of nations, and commander of armies, he was a shit head... and the Nazi followers were, and are, mugs. Cnut was no fascist, the only shame on him is that people like that use such heroes as loudspeakers which magicly turn their lies into beautiful and romantic truths...I hope you understand, and the necessity to say this to you unecessary anyway. I just wish people wise up, smell the crispy bacon. I am British by the way and proud of my nation, and prouder still to know we stood against the black tide of ignorance. Even if it was not a unanimous vote. I bet many Germans were happy the British did this too. Alot of their liberal economics comes from the British who put Germany back together. A shame we could not do the same for ourselves.
I see you are a fan of the Japanese, if not one yourself. Maybe you know that one of the foremost Samurai philosophies is that a Samurai does not deal in the ways of politicians, as there is no glory in their deeds. That says alot to me. Just look at the world today... politics in its present form is the only real blight we face on the Earth.
Now for Cnut! It is a good question... I am glad you ask. I will not pretend to know anything exact, although I will tell you what I imagine is likely to be a true answer. Cnut's conquest of England meant that he was the rightful leader of the English army, and the fleet, in battle. He was of course king of the Danes also, although I believe the Danish army went home with Harald his brother after the conquest (I will get to the 1016 thing. It is probably wrong. If Harald died after he left England, it was in 1017, 1018 is the most likely anyway, for various reasons which I must check on). This means that Cnut found a way to keep his hold on the country, without a particularly significant Danish military presence. After all, he was not the King of Denmark at the time of his coronation as King of Engand.
It was the Huscarls who meant he could do this. His own essentially private, army, which he was the founder of. These were the House-men, probably of considerably mixed nationality. His mixing of English and Danish Earls is testament to this. Anyway, the Danelaw meant half the country was loyal to him anyway, and the English in persistent opposition dealt with over the couple of years after his enthronment, most were already dead.
So, with the Huscarls in consideration, Cnut's army was mainly English, in England, along with Danes in Denmark, and the glue which held it all together were the king's own elite troops, on the royal payroll. After his death, these men went to his sons, although as the succession was in dispute, they probably divided, although maybe not along the lines of nationality.
England was then, basically the same after Cnut died, with most Danes and English in support of his sons as the best options presented themselves. With basic unsureity, as well as much conflicts of propagandas by the magnates, who were behind one or the other of the women who bore the childer. It gets complicated here though.
So I'll just leave it at the fact that in 1066, Harald II Godwineson, died on the grasses of Hastings with his Huscarls there to die with him, and the last remant of Cnut's stamp on the English military. The Normans kept many of his laws, as well as his four Earldoms, although theirs was an entirely different way of life than that of the Vikings.
Please do not move articles without having reached consensus! You can't go around moving articles just because you personally think they should be called something else - and the fact remains, Canute is the most "popular" form. Use any search engine to see for yourself. If you still want to officially propose a move, do so and let people discuss it.
And do not disguise a major change such as a move as a minor edit! That is definitely not good Wiki-behaviour. --dllu10:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Biology of Plants is a great book, yes, but in the matter of this taxon name, it is incorrect. It has used the name "Hepatophyta" in prepetuation of a publication error. The error has since been corrected in the primary literature, nut unfortunately not in this textbook yet. Please read the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I see that you keep reverting my edits on this article and your edits summaries contain nothing more than your username so it's kind of hard for anyone to know what you're changing and why. I will not edit war with you but I would just like to direct you to the link on the Regime article in order for you to confirm that it is spelled Regime rather than Regeim as you keep changing it to that.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC
An editor has nominated Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own references is quite specific in excluding these areas. I do not have access to you references; I have provided the links to the Wiki pages for Ireland, Wales, the Earldom of Orkney and the Kingdom of Scotland for the period in question. At present Canute's influence is notable by its absence from these articles. As your references provide additional information, might I suuggest your include it in these articles as a starting point? Aatomic1 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there were Joms on the coast, with links in Scandinavia through the Baltic Sea, and the Danes held interests in their commercial as well as military activities, this, alongside Canute's conflicts with the Wends, as well as assistance from the Poles, suggest a strong Danish presence in Pomerania.[1]
You have today stated that you do not have access to this book and yet you have added it as a reference. I ask you to self revert until such time as you do have access to the book in question.
Legends relate the rulers of the Danish kingdom to the mythical Jomsvikings, whose stronghold, Jomsborg, is thought to have been made at the delta of the Oder river, on the Island of Wolin. If there were Joms on the coast, with links in Scandinavia through the Baltic Sea, and the Danes held interests in their commercial as well as military activities, this, alongside Canute's conflicts with the Wends, as well as assistance from the Poles, suggest a strong Danish presence in Pomerania.[1] Its position put it on the map for merchants of Scandinavia to journey between the Baltic Sea, central Europe, and the Mediterranean Sea.
Hi, please participate in the discussion on the talk page to reach consensus. It is being discussed that the claims you are making of his dominion are not verifiable and are conjecture. Bardcom (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please observe the 3RR rule which states that you are not allowed to revert the same article more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. You also continue to revert the article to make the same claims, even though a discussion is ongoing in the talk pages. You may not be aware of these rules, but please discuss the claims, and your references, before changing the article. Be patient. This is not a race. If you have verifiable sources and references, then the changes will be made once consensus is reached. Otherwise there is a good chance that your behaviour will be seen to be edit-warring, and you may even be subject to a block (in fact, you can be blocked for a violation of a 3RR anyway, if reported). Your changes have been reverted for now. Don't be in a rush to put them back - think about what edits you want to make, and what sources you are using, and if the sources are reliable. Bardcom (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Below is the standard 3RR template that is to warn you about not engaging in discussion and constantly reverting the article. Bardcom (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Canute the Great. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
No problem - let's continue to discuss on the article's talk page. We'll keep it friendly - I know you are acting in good faith and are genuinely trying to make this a great article. Bardcom (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you are, unintentionally, reducing the quality of one of Wikipedia's best articles. Please note that an enormous amount of reading went into this article, synthesising the scholarship and not relying on one or two sources. Hrothgar cyning, who wrote the bulk of the article, has published articles and a book (which is referenced by the best historians in the field) on the subject, and Wikipedia was very lucky to have him contributing. I know you are editing the article with the best of intentions, but this really was not one of our articles that needed much work. I think the best approach would be to first raise your issues with the article on the talk page, and maybe then they could be subtly accommodated in the text. qp10qp (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[responding to comment on my Talk] I understand what you are doing and can see merit in debating reorganization etc. However, you need to be aware that you are in danger of Original Research at several points, as you adjust things to suit your point of view. As I say on the King Arthur Talk, I have no great interest in keeping the text unchanged - it's wiki!! But I do want any changes to be academically respectable and to reflect current opinion, without Original Research: this article took a long time to get up to FA status and I'd like not to lose it :-) So, by all means, if you think there is obvious bias -- though I personally doubt there is: we tried very hard to make it *finely* balanced to reflect current research --, change it. But do it by citing respectable academic works and write as a summary of their views. Thus on the AC, the ref clearly argues that a 10thC date is likely and even probable. You may disagree, but if you simply change 'likely' to 'possible' then it's original research. If you instead say that say so-and-so says likely,[ref] but other-so-and-so casts doubts[ref] --> this is professional and few would object, if it was accurate and the reference was good. Of course, this is just my opinion! Hence why I suggest discussion on the Talk :-) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested a quote from Geoffrey Ashe because he is (a) one of the dwindling number of scholars who believe strongly in a historical Arthur, and (b) is widely respected by other scholars in his field. As for his theories, my understanding is that he proposes Riothamus was the historical Arthur, whose legend influenced the Historia Britanniae, the Annales Cambriae, and Geoffrey of Monmouth (according to him "Riothamus" was just a title). My point was, if we want a quote from a respected scholar who believes in a historical Arthur, he's probably the best around. Berresford-Ellis is just not as respected in the field, and Morris' book has been widely criticized.
I can't understand your last paragraph. If you are appealing to the Historia Britonum and the Annales as the only early sources for the legend, that's just wrong. As we've discussed on the talk page there are a number of earlier sources, and later ones that reference earlier material, which contain glimpses of the legend. The thing is, none of them treat Arthur as a historical leader who fought the Saxons. That only early Welsh sources that do that are the Historia Brittonum and works such as the Annales Cambriae which are based directly on it.--Cúchullaint/c23:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Thanks for uploading File:CnuttheGreat.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2009 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) 06:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 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) 00:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 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) 04:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 00:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 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) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very appreciated if you could give some more detailed edit summaries (instead of just writing your name) when you do large edits like this. I do not doubt that your edits are correct and needed, but it would be nice to get some general hint as to the underlying strategy behind them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The August 2009 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) 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
The September 2009 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) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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) 21:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Non-free coin images like File:Cnutsilvpeny.jpg are routinely deleted. We don't even have a non-free image of the Coenwulf mancus, and it is unique, unlike pennies from the reign of Cnut which are held by all manner of museums and private individuals and have appeared in endless out-of-copyright books. Please don't upload images like this unless you have created them yourself or they were released under a free-content license. Otherwise they do not and can not meet the non-free content criteria. Thanks, Angus McLellan(Talk)13:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right that it is *usually* the underlying image that is copyrighted. If you make a perfect sketch or photograph of a Francis Bacon painting, that will be covered by the same copyright as the original painting. But for these coins, nobody owns the copyright to the actual coin. What the British Library claims is copyright over their picture of a coin. If the coin was two-dimensional we would just ignore them and add a {{PD-Art}} copyright tag. But because it is three-dimensional (so the lawyer said, but isn't an oil painting too then?) we can't do that. But we can sketch their photograph because the sketch is not going to be the same as the original picture. It certainly all seems very odd to me, but I am not a lawyer.
I forgot to say that I got a copy of Rumble's book The Reign of Cnut but I haven't had a chance to read it yet so I can't tell you if it is going to be very useful. Angus McLellan(Talk)09:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2009 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) 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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) 04:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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) 05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The February 2010 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) 23:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2010 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) 22:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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) 20:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:E&C WinchesterCross.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Tim1357talk20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit, you say "I am not in favour of in text reference to modern works or authors" - not sure what you meant by that, but direct quotations from any work should always be marked with "" - just copying their wording without indicating you have done so would have been a copyright violation.
In case you missed it, I left a comment regarding your recent additions to the article here. Since you have Hudsons article at hand, you should really use that more and Forte&al less. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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) 23:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:CoinHarthacnut.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 10:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, WikieWikieWikie. 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.
"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.
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.
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. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 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 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WikieWikieWikie. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:CnuttheGreat.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
