User talk:EraNavigator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Laeti and feedback 2 Some Papers on the Late Roman Army or Relevant To 3 Battle of Strasbourg 4 Battle of Argentorate 5 [[]] 6 A class

[edit] Laeti and feedback

I gave you the feedback several days ago. I put some fact tags on the Laeti article. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that wasn't mine and I was happy to get a reply because it is very obvious that this text wasn't written by an archaeologist. I didn't tell you about the suggested literature in German because you won't be a able to read it. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I welcome every transfer because the article is fairly too long for a casual reader. About the archaeological evidence for fortified structures there is an ongoing debate whether every structure that looks fortified was military, but yes, there are substantial fortifications in the hinterland. Luttwak proposed his theory when it was widely accepted that everything square or polygon with walls around was a military base, that interpretation has changed. As I pointed out, it is impossible to state where the comitatenses were, so it could be a staggered defence or a forward, we simply don't know because we don't know where half the army was.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a complicated analyses to do and will be able to contribute in a few months. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can give you a few of my archaeological works in translation. That should help your reputation. Shrinking articles is always a good idea. With the fewer words you can explain a subject, the better you are. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some Papers on the Late Roman Army or Relevant To

As mentioned in my edit in your peer review thread for this article, I have some papers you may be interested in. I took the liberty of uploading them to Filefront, where you can download them for free.

Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian: http://files.filefront.com/Roman+Military+Pay+from+Cnpdf/;9412154;/fileinfo.html Medicine in the Roman Army: http://files.filefront.com/Medicine+in+the+Roman+Armypdf/;10389970;/fileinfo.html Development of Roman Mailed Cavalry: http://files.filefront.com/The+Development+of+Roman+ypdf/;10389968;/fileinfo.html Roman Arms and Armour: http://files.filefront.com/Roman+Arms+and+Armorpdf/;10389967;/fileinfo.html Raising New Units for the Late Roman Army: http://files.filefront.com/Raising+New+Units+for+theypdf/;10389966;/fileinfo.html

I hope these help! JonCatalan (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Strasbourg

I have serious dounbts that it is listed under the most common English name. Please check this and undo the move by Brandmeister. Thx. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The numbers in the infobox all need individual citation. That shouldn't be too difficult because you have sourced it in the article.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Add the images from the corresponding Italian article. The Julian in the German article is wrongly attributed. A map would do nicely, but is not necessary for B class. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I also wrote to the one who made the move and will give him a few days for reply. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a fact tag in the background section, please provide a cite for that and don't forget the images from the Italian wiki. If they are not on commons, upload them under the same licence as they are listed in Italian. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please tell that you checked the name of the battle here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Argentorate

I noticed you've made a huge ammount of edits to the article Battle of Argentorate, all but one without edit summaries. Although this may make things easier for you, mass edits without edit summaries severly diminish the usefulness of the pages edit history, and ultimately hurt the article. For future reference, please remember to use the edit summary, and to make all your changes/improvements in as few edits as possible. Please take this as a friendly reminder instead of a formal warning, however, if this continues you may be warned. Consider changing your preferences to notify yourself when you have made an edit without a edit summary. Best, Metagraph 12:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries are always needed, regardless of whether you are writing (which is editing, every edit is writing the article in some way) or editing the article. They are needed because it is more curtious towards the future editors who look through the edit history. Not putting them once or twice is fine, but having large amounts of blank edit summaries hurt the article, and makes it hard to find potential vandalism. However, i do appreciate all the work you have contributed, and understand that edit summaries can be annoying, but they are needed as per WP:EDITSUMMARY. It is also important to note that the article is not yours, and anyone can freely edit. An edit summary is helpful to find out which of your changes need to be reverted. It is more of a courtesy thing than anything, but still a rules and need to be followed. If the changes do not warrant an edit summary, you can use the 'This is a minor edit' checkbox, and you should escape most problems, but beware to only use this on minor edits or you could get in trouble for mis-using edit summaries.

As for the formal warning, it is just a reminder towards what you should do. It holds no weight especially for something as minor not using edit summaries, but it is still noted.

Please, don't feel you are being singled out. Every editor must conform to the rules here, and no one is exempt. Thank you for your time, and if you have any personal opinions towards this do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Best wishes and happy editing, Metagraph comment 23:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [[]]

Caro Andrea,

Settimana scorsa ho cominicato lavorare per il sito. Purtroppo le cose sono piu complicate che io ho creduto. Non lo so come integrare il “search engine” di Wikipedia nel nostro sito. Posso fare questo solo con l’aiuto d’un amico che ha una piccolo impreza di webdesign. Sit u sei d’accordo questo ammico puo aiutare tanto il nostro projeto.

Un abbraccio, Andrei

Andrei nacu 11:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A class

Well, you improve the articles and gain prestige, not as shiny as a rolex, but much rarer and recognised worldwide. If you submit them to an A-class review, there will be quite a few issues to solve. Just do it to learn more about writing great articles. This review will be mostly focused on content. The next step will be FA, that is rather focused on style. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't provide enhaced protection, all articles are equal in that aspect. IP editors do contribute lots of valuable edits(spellchecking, grammar) and often fight vandalism. On the other hand I have met vandals who learned to log in, so such a policy (that is praticed in the German wikipedia) wouldn't provide significant changes and is unlikely to be adopted anytime soon. But your work still could do with a higher class review. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)