User talk:Nik Sage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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)

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:OttomanHorseArcher.jpg

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)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

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

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Javelin

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)

[edit] Javelin is not a Pilum

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)

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)
No probles, thanks for the advice (I'm quite new here as a writer). 06:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pike

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] W:3O

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

[edit] Wiki etiquette

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)


[edit] Turkish bow

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).

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)
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)

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)

[edit] Odin's Spear

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)

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)

[edit] Mongols and other mounted troops

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)

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)

[edit] Images

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)


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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Missing articles

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)

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)
Ah, thank you. Different spelling apparently - Skysmith 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] peer review request

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)

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

[edit] WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 11:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verutum

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)

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)

[edit] Eurasian steppe

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)

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)
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)
(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)
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)

[edit] Little Hungarian Plain

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)

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)~

[edit] Barnstar

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)
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)

[edit] WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/i/k/User_talk%7ENik_Sage_bdb8.html"