User talk:PocklingtonDan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Leave a message if you like.
[edit] scans
I've uploaded the tables of contents of a few books listed at Talk:Structural_history_of_the_Roman_military. Tell me what looks most useful to you. semper fictilis 22:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Somethings amiss with my scanner, so it might be a few days before I get you those scans. semper fictilis 20:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Check your email. semper fictilis 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, check your email. semper fictilis 03:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Check your email. semper fictilis 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Military history/Coordinators
 |
Hello PocklintonDan. Thanks for your support at the Military history elections. With your aid I was able to commision this ship to help plunder the coast of Military history. Na, just kidding. If you ever require any astance all you have to do is ask and you will see my ship on the horizon. Kyriakos 08:39, 27 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 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Smith, Service in Post-marian army
Hi Dan, I noticed that I also have a copy of R.E. Smith, Service in the post-Marian Roman Army, which I think will be very helpful for the late Republic. If you don't have access to it, I can lend you a scan. semper fictilis 15:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Check your email. (And perhaps pass it along to other editors who might find it useful.) semper fictilis 18:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] army stuff post AD 150
Hi Dan. Post-150 is a little late for me. Still, I've had a dig around and I have a few things that might be useful:
- Cambridge Ancient History, 1st ed., vol. xii Imperial Crisis has a section on "The Army and its Transformation"
- E. Birley, Roman Britain the the Roman Army (1961)
- E.W. Marsden, Greek and Roman Artillery (1969)
- Brant, Roman Military Law
- Maxfield, The Military Deorations of the Roman Army
- Rodgers, Greek and Roman Naval Warfare (only down to Actium)
- Starr, Roman Imperial Navy
- Pink, Roman Military Papyrus
As a first step, I can scan the table of contents of a book you want to get a glimpse into.
There might be some more, but I'm waiting for some bookshelves to be built and it's kind of hard to see what's in the boxes. (If you can think of something, ask: I work near a major university library that has pretty holdings in ancient history.) semper fictilis 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Check your email (and again) semper fictilis 16:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I can possibly find some equipment reforms. Check out the heavy cavalry forces of the late Roman army, they have likely thheir origin in these days, with the army of Palmyra(a rebelling vassal) is likely an example of clibanarii] use. You mentioned the [numerii] somewhere in your aticles alredy, they were possibly something significant of the Roman army during that period, forced levies serving on garrison duty far away fom home and not getting old, whilö the traditional auxialliary specialists such as archers did wear armor and had a higher standing within the forces. There is an excavaTion of a Roman castel in Mesopotamia where the Persians and the Romans fought underground and the tunnels collapsed, but I can't remember the name. However, the findings did reveal lots of info on the Roiman troops of that period. Wandalstouring 19:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opération Manta
Hi Dan, thanks for your extremely careful peer review. If you have any other time to lose with my article, could you tell me if you find the article's OK now, or do you think there are still issues to solve (apart the images, that is)?--Aldux 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talkpage archiving
Just doing the rounds of talkpages previously archived by EssjayBot III. Just to let you know that Misza13 has created MiszaBot III to perform the same function. You can request this Bot's services at User:MiszaBot/Archive requests. WjBscribe 01:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppetry case
 |
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PocklingtonDan for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. John Wallace Rich 20:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Your accusation of me being a sockpuppet was judged by others to be baseless harassment and has been removed [1]. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 06:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)
The article is now a GA. Have your comments from the review been addressed? I would like to discuss if the article fullfills A-class now.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The peer review
Thanks for your comments! I have made some replies and invite you to make some more here. Cheers, :) SGGH 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PockBot still not recursing properly when category name includes ampersand
PockBot's listing of the articles in is still not recursive -- the bug is still not fixed. If you cannot fix it within the next few days, can you suggest another bot that would at least give me a recursive count of the articles? NeonMerlin 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Imperial Legions
Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you about the Roman Imperial period military. Unfortunately, I cannot help you - I have scanty knowledge at best about the imperial period, nor can recommend any texts dealing with the matter. - Vedexent (talk) - 04:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Did you know we were the same person?
PocklingtonDan -- Did you know we are the same person, because stupid me, I did not. I thought we were separate people, I really did! Some lunatic who did not even use his name put the old sock puppet accusation on my user page, claiming I was you. (check my user page history!) Since there was NO evidence listed on the evidence page, nor a request for an IP check, I deleted the whole thing. This is, by the way, the second time someone has accused me of being someone else. Last time they accused me of being oldwindybear, but alas, we are different people also. But I wondered if you were aware that you were alleged to be me, and I to be you. (If you have a great deal of money, I would like to become you, lol!) Otherwise, I apologize, but I will remain myself. I definitely declined to be oldwindybear, he is evidently quite ill. (Hope he gets better, but he listed illness as the reason for not staying on as an assistant military project coordinator - too bad, because he was a good one) At any rate, I wonder who they will accuse me of being next; Kirill, perhaps? Stillstudying 11:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless I've been accused of sockpuppetry twice then (see above) I think the person who suggested I was your sockpuppet (or vice versa) was John Wallace Rich, who got a bit upset about something or other and decided to take it out on me (or you, or us both). His allegation was swiftly shut down by an admin before I even saw it. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
PocklingtonDan It was your pal John Wallace Rich. Because you put a link on my user page - a courtesy many of us do - and because I dared congratulate you for the military coordinator elections, and finally, because I call the Civil War the Civil War, John Wallace says I must be you! Stillstudying 16:30, 21 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 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
