User talk:WikieWikieWikie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[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:

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 Wikipedia.

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 16:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canute the Great

Here are a couple of useful Wikipedia-hints:

  • Add your comments to the bottom, rather than the top, of discussion pages.
  • Sign your comments with ~~~~.

I've tried to explain at Talk:Canute the Great why I think your addition is unsuitable. I agree that the previous version is not good but I think your changes haven't improved it. Haukur 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canute again

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. Haukur 10:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] God's angels

"...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". Haukur 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sigrid the Haughty

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? Szopen 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiWiki, PLEASE revise your edits. The sentences are too large and I can't understand them. Are you native speaker? Szopen 10:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have ade some improvement which I hope are enough.

WikieWikieWikie 12:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article may interest you

[1]

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, Cnutr and the Vikings. It is driving me over the edge with all these 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.

[edit] Image licencing

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. Haukur 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Haukur 10:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.


[edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 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 - 20:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 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 22:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 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 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 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 23:36, 26 December 2006 (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 21:45, 23 January 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 15:08, 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 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lithosphere

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? --Bejnar 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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. --Bejnar 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


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. --Bejnar 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This same source,[[2]], goes on to say in a later paragraph "The lithosphere includes the crust". Check it out. --Bejnar 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
(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? --Bejnar 01:42, 29 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 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canut the Great

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? --Arigato1 15:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

WikieWikieWikie 17:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/User_talk%7EWikieWikieWikie_0eb0.html"