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:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Roger Daviestalk14:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Phil Barker page was proposed for deletion 2 years ago - the result delete. After two years it is reasonable to revisit the issue but I suggest the creator of this page check out the procedure for changing a decision like this. Anyone who knows anything about wargaming will agree that Phil Barker is notable and his influence for good or ill ~on wargaming has been huge. None the less, it is the wider wiki community that has to be convinced.Dejvid (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Dejvid - I wasn't aware of this as it wasn't flagged when I did my check on writing an article. The deletion record seems to have been a very limited discussion about it being a stub without any external refs. Someone even suggests rewriting it to a better standard, which I hope I have. I'm pretty new to this so thanks again for your constructive guidance Monstrelet (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The June 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there.I noticed you had reverted my edit.I have a ref which supports what happend in the battle.When Edwards Knight were engadged the scottish pikemen the English combined attack with archers failed and were pushed to the right flank.Robert the Bruce then engadged his light cavalry to chase down the archers since the archers wernt able to fully mobilise.
I think this main engagement with the English archers must be mentioned.So what do you think???Goodbye.
Thanks youre a great help.Also I added the fact that the scots used yew stave longbows but gave a further explanation they had largely inferior archers and skills.I got it from that book I mentioned to you.Goodbye and thanks again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again.Page 63 in this book called Bannockburn 1314 Robert the Bruce victory suggests that there was only 500 scottish archers present in the battle.Should I add it?Thanks Again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missinterpeted I meant the accounts itself.Yes,the English archers were pushed in front of the lines and a shoot-out began between both the English and Scottish Archers.Few kills were excanged at first but then the King of England's archers put them to flight.The scottish archers engadged the infantry with battle axes towards the end and this caused pressure on the English ranks.The English accidentily mistaken camp followers as soldiors when they emerged from the forrosts and so they withdrew out of exhaustion.The have always been potrayed by evidence concerning the battle as having very few archers and little cavalry.
Hello again.I will definitely agree on you that the numbers differ very hugely from source to source.I also anknowledge the fact that Robert the Bruce learned from Falkirk 1298 by employing his own Longbowmen.I think though it would rather be convincing that he could have only fielded a small number of medicore archers.In a rational sence it takes in least a decade to gain proficiency with the bow and such archery was immensely disregarded in most of scotland (and only emerging in England for that matter).Archery wasnt anknowledged in scotland until the reign of James I in 1424 when he declared Archery Law.I wouldnt have expected Bruce to have fielded an immense group of archers.I am not even sure if any scottish chronicler has ever even commented regarding the battle any strong scottish archery playing a role at all and surely no source present credits a potential group of archers pressent on there side.When the Welsh archers were driven by the Men at arms the tide of the battle changed.Barbour whom was pressent at the battle wrote "So fast that if there shooting had presisted it would have gone hard for the scots".Bruce knew better then the English by having those cavalry pressent.Goodbye and have a nice-day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missinterpeted I meant the accounts itself.Yes,the English archers were pushed in front of the lines and a shoot-out began between both the English and Scottish Archers.Few kills were excanged at first but then the King of England's archers put them to flight.The scottish archers engadged the infantry with battle axes towards the end and this caused pressure on the English ranks.The English accidentily mistaken camp followers as soldiors when they emerged from the forrosts and so they withdrew out of exhaustion.The have always been potrayed by evidence concerning the battle as having very few archers and little cavalry.Bannackburn sets the example of an infantry victory over cavalry rather then archers.Since it was largely due to the bad commanding of Edward II.The English and Welsh archers whom by themeselves could have won the battle.I will continue to believe that archery had little to do as the reseault over cavalry.It seems more of an infantry victory.Most of the scottish archers at the battle had medicore skill.The scots followed the tactic of Courtrai in 1302 when mass units of pikemen pushed back engaging French Knight.What the Flemings and Scottish militias succuse achieved,represented the developement of a new tactic:The aggresive rush of massed infantry and the co-ordination of archers and cavalry.The favoured weapon in scotland was the spear not the bow and wasnt popular.Goodbye
Hello Monstrrelet.I'm asking if Neil Amstrongs book on Bannackburn is reliable.He says near the first few pages there was about 1500 scottish archers but then he later says in page 63 that there in least 500 scottish archers strong in least that day where was the other 1000 at that time.Thanks--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my copy from the Bannockburn talkpage.
Greetins to you both.Page 63 in this book called Bannockburn 1314 Robert the Bruce victory suggests that there was only 500 scottish archers present in the main battle but as Monstrelet said Neil Amstrong sugests a total of 1500 archers.The question itself if it is indeed 1500 archers where did the other 1000 archers dissapear from the scence?Scottish Archers carried battle axes and disdained missile and often liked to engadge in a close melee,as said by this book http://books.google.ie/books?id=RHQHAQAAIAAJ&q=Scottish+archers&dq=Scottish+archers.Also the book also states on page 31 that before King Roberts reign scotland had been hugely deficient of archers.There is evidence that Robert I changed the feudal obligation of knight service to archer service.A Knights fee was to supply 10 archers.However a bow(short) is clearly different from a longbow.Most of The archers of scotand were recruited from the Borders and low-lands since they were the most anlicised in manner.I wouldnt expect the scots have such a high amount of archers if there amount of cavalry was pretty little anyway.If they used the longbow it takes in least 10-15 years of practice to gain profficiency and also there skill is completely medicore.This all implyes to those archers because they engaded the English archers on the second day at dawn and were quickly put to flight by the English ones.1500 scottish archers is too high and anyway Amstrong even admits that there is no evidence of the proportion that was meant for the scots concerning pikemen and archers.A scottish ordinniane and parliamiant was held in scone 1318 near Perth adressing many angles of importance but an intresting one is that when it specificly aimed at those second category of men worth goods to a value of a cow were expected to equip themeselves with either a spear or a bow.The first(spear) was the most favored of that category.Scottish pikemen have been trained by Robert the Bruce to engadge in the move(litterely push them of the battlefield) to makethemselves harder targets for English archers.There is no evidence of trained scottish archers at the time of Bruce.Those very few good archers came from ettirick forest on the Borders as at Falkirk 1298.Unfortunatly I would have to disagree with Monstrelet on the argument that the scots had a wide range of archers since there is no evidence for this as far as I have read.Archery Law as I previously stated wasnt introduced until by King James in 1424 when he returned from English captivity.http://books.google.ie/books?id=x1QCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA18&dq=The+scottish+archers+had+weak+skill#v=onepage&q=&f=false . This here states that English skill with the bow is indisputibly better then that of any scotsmen frenchmen ect.Archery Law was established twice in scotland both were a failuire.The French Francs-Archers formed by Charles VII in 1448 later turned out to be weak archers whom had no intrest in defending France or in archery and were no more a ruthless band of thugs so were quickly disbanded in 1435.Golf and football is propably a main reason for scottish indescisiveness with the bow in archery.Read this book Otterburn 1388.http://books.google.ie/books?id=5wEZgyYnoikC&pg=PA24&dq=Scottish+Archery+in+medievial+times&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .It says that the scottish archers were drawn from the borders and low-lands but they did not match the English archers in number or in there tactical skil.Scottish corps of archers continued to be a minority in the scottish army.1500 Archers is way to high.http://books.google.ie/books?id=KCl1l35K-IcC&pg=PA39&dq=Scottish+Archery+in+medieval+times&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Also Robert the Bruce only stayed because of bad morale in the English camp.Scottish archers were only considerd a minority to Robert I not an accomplishement of victory.Bruce thought of having a sizeable amount of Longbowmen would counter the English ones but he could have never have recruited a huge nuber of them.The scottish archers were a small amount at Bannockburn and Falkirk.Goodbye and hope to see you again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Monstrelet thanks for your reply about scottish archery on the Bannockburn talkpage.I would like to explain a few points to you about the difference between the short bow,crossbow and longbow in government records at the time of Edward II.I found a book about the battle of Falkirk(1298) regarding archers.The same as usual n quote that they had hugely deficient archers and that archery was not a strong tradition in scotland.http://books.google.com/books?id=ykx5PcLxu-0C&pg=PA28&dq=Ettrick+Bow+and+lonbow&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Of course they had a tradition (as does other countries) but as said in the book far from strong.Certainly the scots fought as mercenairies but they wernt allways archers or in fact had to be.Scottish mercenaries were employed by the french but in large amounts over-time.At the battle of Verniuil(1424),the English were commanded by the regent of France John the Duke of Bedford against the french led by the constable of France.The English archers were thought to have engadged the scottish archers but the scots were also put to flght.The last of Charles VII scottish allies were destroyed in this battle and the very last few fought at Heerings(1429) not as archers but as axemen.They also lost that battle.You might have heard of Edward III Yeamon of the Gaurd which was a 120 archer gaurd for the soveriegn.The French copied this idea and formed the scots gaurd(genndairimie das esscois) in 1418 by John Stewart but rarely fought in open-pitched battle with the exception if the French king as at battle in person like at the battle of Patay during the Italian Years War.Unfortunatly,the name Scots Gaurd became moot over time since Frenchmen started to fill up those ranks.Francs archers formed in 1448 were supposed to exercise the principle of archery at the church parishes.However the principle wasn't at all effective and was never even put to practice.When they went to church at sunday there are accounts of francs-archers plundering and looting goods.Charles de Bold convinced Louis XI after Guingaite (1479) when the french archers were exposed badly that they were not the best solution and started employing swisss pikemen.francs-archers had no exprerince or trainaing at all and during the italian years war they were nothing more then plunderers.They were also exposed really badly at Ravenna 1512 when the Gascon Archers ran off the battlefield.francs archers were said to only kill chickens not soldiors.The french drill with the use of the bow was not proficcient.http://books.google.com/books?id=hdh4Elj-3WEC&pg=PA513&dq=francs+archers+were+bad#v=onepage&q=&f=false .Louis XI even if he did not formally disband them let them freeley deterioate.http://books.google.com/books?id=xj8FAAAAIAAJ&q=francs+archers+were+bad&dq=francs+archers+were+bad&lr=
The July 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The August 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
The September 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that this is very much the wrong place to write this, but I wanted to thank you for your kind words about my work. War in medieval Scotland is, in may ways, a thankless undertaking for a scholar - academics are not really interested in how wars work, only in the political and diplomatic dimensions around them; enthusiaists generally have a fixed idea of the processes of war which they derive from romantic novels and pseudohistory - so you are damned whatever you say - or for what you do not say....I was recently attacked (verbally) by a perfect stranger for failing to give due prominence to the Templars and their 'decisive intervention' at Bannockburn. What can you say?
Thank you againd for your kindness; if there is ever anything I cajn do to help you with your studies, do feel free to get in touch. My e-mail is the_lighthouse@btinternet.com
All the best,
Chris. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.111.227 (talk • contribs)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The February 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken your question about popular culture out into its own section at the bottom of the milhist talk page - I think it was being overlooked where it was. I've also edited the start of your comment slightly (removing the first sentence "Ok, thanks. My starter for ten would be this."), just so it reads consistently for the start of a new section. I'm aware this is a bit of a technical breach of Wikiquette so please accept my apologies and, of course, please revert if you dislike what I've done. All the best, EyeSerenetalk15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
Hi, I see you've done a lot of work on the Spear article, thanks heaps. I was the editor to originally call for a rewrite but I never really followed up so again thanks. I feel it is a pity that the article for what is possibly the most commonly used weapon in history had such a poor article. I'll try and do a bit of a clean up when I get a chance. Master z0b (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm assuming that you did was to go back to an earlier version of the page that still had your report on it. Then, forgetting that it wasn't the current version, you responded to a comment and saved, trashing everything for the past 4 days. This sound familiar? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can figure out a revision which represents a reasonably neutral and well-sourced version, and can show me why, I'm quite happy to lock the article down completely (=admin only edits) for a while to allow tempers to cool. Buckshot06(talk)08:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for taking a look at the Battle of Towton and commenting at its FAC. I have replied to and acted on your concerns. Could you review what I have done and comment if they addressed your worries? Thank you again. Jappalang (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Retrenchment (military), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Retrenchment. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking your time to look and assess the Nathan Hale article. The only thing I can think that makes him notable was that he was one of the commanders and the person who surrendered at the Battle of Hubbardton. —Michael Jester (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I must give some explanations after your comment regarding an edit-war in the article Stratioti. Yes, the historic incident in question may be evaluated as a minor one from the military point of view. But the inflaming quotation is very big. When dealing with history in WP you must have in mind that you may accidentally tackle a national myth. Most nations have one or two of them and Albanians, besides Skanderbeg, have the national myth of continuity of their nation from antiquity till today. Well, you may argue that the Greeks have the same, although this "myth" is more real. The theme of Stratioti is perfect to beef up the existence of an Albanian nation in middle ages, since the term "Albanian" (whatever it means) occurs frequently in relevant sources. So, they overcharged the article with "Albanian stratioti". The occurence of the phrase "We are children of the Greeks" in the mouth of a Stratioti, was an Albanian anticlimax, though, and this is the reason why they are desperate to erase it. On the other hand, the vivid narration of Noukios on foreign mercenaries in England should not be neglected, from the historian's point. One may find there valuable material regarding their lives, their attidutes, military ethics etc. In this quotation you find the invocation of an "ancient glory" which is something rare in a period and place where consciousness of deep-rooted national history barely existed.
I hope to see you around and discuss more on the old question "what is the use of history?".--Euzen (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said on the MILHIST talkpage that you seem to run into articles that already have B-Class checklists completed. I found that with a lot of battles especially older battles you can run into a redirect that will take you to an article that already has the list completed. That would be my best guess as why you would be running into already complete checklists. Thanks for any help with the completion of checklists. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!
Congratulations, Monstrelet, you've recently completed your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!
Thank you for all your contributions to articles on medieval weapons and armor, and for your work in WikiProject Military History. Kudos, and keep it up! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Cravant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lombard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I've added more info and new images and I'm really trying to drum up support from other military history editors to make this a great article. If there's anyone you know that would be willing to help feel free to invite/pester them into contributing. Master z0b (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Company (German), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provençal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Limoges, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward, Prince of Wales. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
An article that you have been involved in editing, Chevauchée , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ℜob C.aliasALAROB19:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
If ther 'translation' is a 'common misconception' why is it 1. in the article (I didn't add it, just moved it; and you didn't remove it) 2. why son't you add the correct interpretstion? Paul B (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that my previous comment sounded rather curt. Ah, Hardy. Oddly, the only reason I edited the article was that I'd just been watching the young Hardy playing Henry V in An Age of Kings. Unusually, Erpinghasm is played by the same actor who plays Bardolph. Anyway, that's all rather by the by. At the moment the fact that Erpingham came out with an odd word seems to be just left hanging. I read somewhere thst it might have been something to do with striking in stakes, but I guess the best thing is to give the source, context and the various interpretations. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English longbow may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
allowed typologies of arrow heads to be produced, the most modern being the Jessop typology.<ref>{{cite web|first=Oliver |last=Jessop |title=A New Artefact Typology for the Study of Medieval
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Great Raid of 1322, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlisle and East Riding. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flail (weapon), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Avars and Rus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Monstrelet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 1 Milhist article at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Hi, in August 2009 you have significantly expanded the 'Medieval history' section of the Spear article (special:diff/306376166). The new text contains a reference to some book by Paul Martin, but it lacks the book title! It is a ref to the sentence about a 'winged spear', “which had two prominent wings at the base of the spearhead, either to prevent the spear penetrating too far into an enemy or to aid in spear fencing”. Was the book [2] “ARMOUR AND WEAPONS”? --CiaPan (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to propose moving this draft to mainspace a week from tomorrow, to give editors time to improve it as much as possible in that time frame. I would welcome your review of the images in that time. I made, I think, a solid effort to pick images relevant to the sections in which they were placed, and to draw from a diverse range of periods and locations. Cheers! bd2412T03:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it from theory to notion, because theory is a proven concept, like the theory of evolution, whereas the hypothesis (I would have used that, but it had already been used right before) of "stirrups caused Feudalism" is just an idea, hypothesis, notion, suggestion at this point. Change it to whatever you see most fit to convey that notion --Kar98 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Monstrelet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, thank you for your review during the April to June 2018 quarter. Here is a WikiStripe for your contribution to our article quality processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Monstrelet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I noticed at WP:MILHIST that you're interested in mystery artillery pictures. There are many of these in Category:Unidentified artillery on Commons. I ID'd a number of these over the last few years; you might want to give it a try. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 21:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]
Can I know why you reverted my edit despite the sources I was the one to link backing my claim up? I was the one to put Mortimer and Rogers as sources in front of 25,000 thousands and forgot to mention valets were not fighting men. Have you actually checked the sources out before reverting it? Jules Agathias (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk·contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to English longbow may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
