User talk:Urselius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] 100 days
I am asking editors I know and trust on Napoleonics to join me in fixing this God awful mess of and article. I can sure use your help! Tirronan 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anglo-Saxon articles?
Urselius, I had a quick look at your contributions, and I see you're interested in Penda too. Would you have any interest in working on some Anglo-Saxon articles? I've been going through some of the kings and trying to get them up to featured article quality, and it sounds like you have some expertise in this area. I was also thinking of focusing on one specific kingdom -- probably Mercia or Wessex -- and trying to get every king up to good quality, plus maybe the survey article on the kingdom too. If you'd like to take a look at the ones I've worked on so far, I've worked on Ceawlin of Wessex, Aelle of Sussex, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Asser, Aethelberht of Kent and Aethelbald of Mercia. Caedwalla of Wessex is a featured article candidate right now, and I'm hoping to get Ine of Wessex there next -- it needs a lot more work still. Anyway, just thought I'd ask -- let me know (here or on my talk page) if you're interested. If not, no problem. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Waterloo nomination for Good Article status
Hi there. I've nominated Battle of Waterloo for GA status. In my opinion it has the makings of a Featured Article, but I think GA would be a good start. Anyway, it's been reviewed on the talk page, and quite a long list of suggestions for fine-grained improvements has been left there. I'll try to implement a few of them over the next few days, if I have time, but I figured, since you're more of a regular contributor to the article, you might be interested in bringing it up to GA. -Kieran 11:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Komnenian army
Good work at Komnenian army; I am very pleased with the new material that you have added to the article. It is good to see the attention that is going into articles concerning the Byzantine Empire at the moment. Well done! Bigdaddy1204 18:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the information on armour and weapons would be a welcome addition also. Interesting website! Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 09:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello! First off, kudos on great work on the article. I'll add what I can here and there when I've got the time to do so, but it is already a very concise article. Second, the very detailed section on equipment, and the (projected) section on tactics, should IMO go to the generic Byzantine army and Byzantine battle tactics articles (which need a thorough rewrite either way), as they reflect the "classic" Byzantine army of the 8th-12th centuries (Timothy Dawson's excellent Osprey book makes that pretty clear) and are not specific to the Komnenian period. I would only retain smaller sections on what is directly relevant and unique for the Komnenian army in relation to the earlier and later (Palaiologan) forces. Best regards, Cplakidas (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Incorporation into Byzantine army
Thanks for the heads up. I assume you wish me to assist. I would love too, but my assistance is hindered by my lack of time. I'm gonna need to read it and then add it later. I also have a good source, "Byzantium at War" by John Haldon, so I should be able to a few more things maybe. Perhaps this coming weekend.
Respectfully,
Tourskin (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Manuel Komnenos
Thank you for your edits in the article. But can you please cite the first paragraph of the section you added about Russia. The article is FA, and we should keep its high level of referencing. I'll copy-edit the text you added, and I'll add some wikilinks. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou 10:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
And what book of Obolensky is the one you cite? Please, provide full data utilizing Template:cite book or Template:cite journal in the article's references. It is crucial to accurately cite all our sources in FA article. Not properly sourced material is reverted. Thanks again!--Yannismarou 10:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)My mistake this!--Yannismarou 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Albuera and Long's replacement
Hi there,
Saw your comment on Battle of Albuera's talk page about Long's replacement, and have answered there. Would appreciate opinions on how to proceed. Fortescue, for example, agrees that Long was replaced by plsn, but relies on d'Urban's letters for evidence, as do Oman, Glover and Weller to support the opposite. When I saw that Napier supported the "dismissed for incompetence" reason, that was enough for me, as I'm well aware of the bad blood and animosity between Napier and Beresford. The fact the Ian Fletcher agrees with the planned replacement version is interesting though, and unfortunately neither Gates nor Esdaille refer to the incident. Carre (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Waterloo Featured Article nomination
Hi there. I've just nominated the Battle of Waterloo article for FA status. You can watch the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Nominations. I'm hoping that, as one of the most knowledgeable and prolific contributors to the article, you'll be able to help out if there are only minor concerns standing in the way of the final status. Anyway, here's hoping... -Kieran (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine - I'm on the case :) Urselius (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quis Custodet Custodes? Waterloo
In the case of FAC, it is clearly the reviewers. The other battle is hardly comparable in this respect. From your comments, and your attempt, you don't unfortunately seem to have much idea what is required by the 3 (I think) reviewers who have made similar comments. Let's hope someone else can add it during the process. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Byzantine double battle
By all means, do it. Also, take the liberty of adding it in the campaignbox please, thanks. Tourskin (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
