User talk:Oldwindybear/archive1

Unblocked

Per our email conversation, you have been unblocked. If there is anything I can do to help you learn how Wikipedia works, please don't hesitate to ask me. -- Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, and I wish to say publicaly that I owe userkatefano an apology; doubting her impartiality and sincerity was wrong morally and I am truly sorry. I am going to take her advice, and I have someone (I cannot drive, alas!) taking me to the library tuesday to get the exact page numbers for precise cites on the controversial issues in the Hamer article. In the interim, since sources are cited, (but not closely enough, which will be rectified, believe me!) i intend to change the one of the article so that it reflects teh general state of knowledge, and cannot lay open anyone to unpleasantness. Again, thank you >Essjay and please know this time i intend to ASK QUESTIONS. Kate, I hope you will still mediate, and if so, once the Hamer article is completely recited to your satisfaction, we will move at last to Bonnie and Clyde. What I would like to do is write a drat, send it to you via wikipedia email and let you examine it prior to just posting. What do you think?old windy bear 07:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear

>Essjay ^{When I tried to go tone down the Hamer article, as Kate had noted, I was still blocked, Would you be kind enough to check that? Thanks! old windy bear 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)oldwindybear}

Checked it, seems to have been an autoblock. Let me know if you still have problems. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot...

Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here!

File:Resilient-silver.png

The Resilient Barnstar

Oh, and this too! You deserve it for being so quick and willing to get back to good work after all the drama that went on. Good show, and congratulations! Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 16:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another welcome

Helo Oldwindybear - I would also like to extend my welcome to you. Please let me know if there is ever anything I can help you with. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I humbly thank you for the welcome, and hope I can be a positive contributer...old windy bear 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC?

If you wish to raise an RFC against user PIG, perhaps that would better. Please see the new comments I added on Katefan's RFC. An archive of this is on my user page if you chose to raise an RFC on PIG. --CyclePat 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi --CyclePat , I have apologized to Kate, and noted that on the RFC page -- do you mean I should file an RFC against Pig? I sort of was hoping he had gone away. He has not been back lately with his personal attacks, and I had hoped to just concentrate on contributing. Your advice is welcome?old windy bear 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Oldwindybear - I hope all is going well. I have noticed that you have experienced some difficulties with Wikipedia. I haven't taken the time to learn the whole history - but I do not Wikipedia can be a challenging place because it can seem like we have a lot of rules and processes. I don't want to get in the middle of everything, but I noticed you removed some on your comments from Katefan0's talk page. You may not be aware of this, but deleting comments from another User's page is generally considered to be bad form. If you want to take back something you said, you can put <s> in front of your original text, and </s> after your original text. Otherwise, it is best to let the User remove comments from their own talk page. I am restoring your text to her user page. Best, Johntex\^talk 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi!>talk</thanks, and can I ask you to go look at the comments Pig left for me on the Battle of Tours? They are at teh bottom of the page. That kind of thing ought to be barred, thanks! Sorry about the comments on Kate's page, I thought they were inappropriate, my brother and I wanted to remove them, didn't know how to do it properly, sorry!old windy bear 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not entirely sure what a user-rfc would do to PIG, and what good it would bring? (maybe it will leave a record on his user page? dunno? I've never really done a rfc-user) But at the time, after analysing the situation, I felt that you where violated. I figured that a user RFC would bring you to the bottom of the issue... (the idea of inclusion of fictional material and historical documents vs. court case material.) (he did seemingly support you after all on your information). I Looked over the rules of Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It however appears that the problem is solved with PIG and there would be no real reason for this (righ now). Also, the fact that Johntex writes that you are still editing talk pages (WHICH YOU SHOULD RARELLY, EVER DO!... unless you forgot to sign your name or something similar to that) make me ponder the situation and wonder how effective a user-rfc would be. (It may just back fire, if you where doing the same thing!) Anyway, next time something like that happens, stay cool, and ask the person to apologize. (If that fails bring it to WP:RFC request for comment (user)). Anyway... You might want to check [1] next time this issue comme up. Or why not put it there right now, under the history section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography!!! This a place to express a quick blurb on your concerns and request comment on the "Article content disputes," that seemingly, according to me, still exist. --CyclePat 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

--CyclePat pat, trust me, I am NOT going to do anything on anyone else's pages in the future. I did not understand all the rules, but I am getting them. I don't care about the user RFC, but do I have to have the kind of stuff he put on the bottom of the page on the talk page of the battle of tours there? That does seem to be wrong. Please advise me on how to deal with it - please note I learned already not to merely erase it! I just want to discuss facts, but this guy == well, the paragraph is virulant enough that it is best read to believe. old windy bear

Thank you for your comments. I just noticed the comments you left on my user page An archive. Generally you wouldn't edit a users page, but you where right that time! (plus you put it in the right spot... endorsements. Seemingly I think that's what you wanted to do, right?). No matter the case, I will look into Battle of Tours. (the thing that happens with wikipedia is that some people take it to seriously, some people do bad things, are not friendly and others that do care (like you and me) get into conflict. I've realized that it's hard to explain to people sometimes what you mean. (don't forget typing and talking are too different things). I could say something like: "the proper way to say apple is ...." (But because wiki is public and for the benefit of others... this may however be consider rude and embarrassing because you would be corrected in public!) (If we where talking in person I would politely correct you and we would be on with the conversation). Anyway, Il check Battle of Tours to see any discrepencies. If there are any problems I suggest you start by leaving a message on the user that is bothering you in question. Try and keep the discussion of user conduct on his or your user page discussions. (Don't forget to tell him you feel offended, and if you are unaware of the reasons, ask him? The common form (back from mentoring class):

• When you do <this>, it makes me feel <this>. I would appreciate your apology. Let's solve our differences with good wikiquette and work together to keep wikipedia NPOV. <sign> (Start with that... well see after)--CyclePat 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

)--CyclePat If I did anything to offend you, it would have been inadvertantly, I assure you, and i do apologize for anything you found offensive. I look forward to your help in my learning the ropes! Yes, I was endorsing! You have my unqualified apology, and take careold windy bear 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your to kind. I forgot about that a while ago. I was wondering what you where talking about at first. (It can't be the edit to the archive on my user page) Then I though about it. Oh! ya! The time I spent to make that page. Apology accepted. Anything to try and keep wikipedia free and loving. Thank you for the apology and don't worry. I would have probably done the same thing in my early editing. I'm sure you'll get to know who the honorable people are quite fast. Best wishes, and p.s.: don't let wikipedia get to much to you. (I actually am addicted to it, and it's not healthy to be in front of the computer all the time let alone stressing out for wiki stuff! One step at a time and don't let anyone change you into something you don't want to be!). by the way(b.t.w.):Welcome to Wiki! --CyclePat 05:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on OldWindyBear at Talk:Battle of Tours

• Dear OldWindyBear - thanks for the reply on my Talk page. I have looked into Talk:Battle of Tours and it is very clear that those comments made about you were extremely innapropriate. I have deleted them. It is unusual to delete comments from article pages, but doing so is permitted if there is something outrageous there, as there was in this case. Still, it is better that the deletion be done by an outside party, such as myself. Note also, that the comments are still there in the history of the article - practically speaking, nothing ever actually deleted on Wikipedia. Things are just removed from the current version of the page. I also researched the history of the Talk page to see who left the comments. The comments were left by an anonymous user. I have blocked that user from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Normally, we would issue several warnings first, but in this case I deemed the case to be clear-cut enough for an immediate block because (1) The anonymous account had made no positive contributions to Wikipedia in the past and (2) The attack was quite severe. Best, Johntex\^talk 03:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

John, may i humbly thank you for deleting those comments? I know I have made mistakes with my efforts here -- but for instance, if you look at the compliment the article on the Battle of Tours just got, I wrote much of that article and felt enormous joy at having been a part of something positive. I am determined to follow the rules, and that is why I came to the administrators, and asked them to act. I am proud of my service, and I am proud I went to school -- i was the first one in my family to go to college! Anyway, I am learning. You will NOT find me doing things I should not. You will find me trying hard to contribute. Thank you for deleting those comments. I won't lie - I had to wonder why someone would hate me so badly who did not know me. Anyway, your earlier advice, I hope you noticed, was followed. i did NOT delete or touch comments someone else wrote. I will learn the rules! Thanks again. old windy bear

Bear, I was just heading over there to take a look myself, but I see my good friend Johntex has beaten me to it. Don't fret, and keep up the good work. BTW, what I'm going to do this evening is archive my talk page, so don't worry about those comments. Bygones. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 03:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

>mrp</ Kate, I am truly sorry for those comments. You were trying to be fair, and I was wrong. I don't like to use health as an excuse, but some days are hard, and I tend to get cranky. Also, i really did not understand the rules - I think I am beginning to, I am trying! I wanted those things removed or archieved because you deserve better, and I am honestly sorry. Thank you also for heading over to look at Pig's latest. Why would he say such things? I was so proud of that article, because if you look at the history, I really did do a great deal of the research on it -- and others too, and we worked together and developed a really first rate article, fair to everyone. Welll, anyway, bygones, and thanks. You are a nice person. Did you get a chance to look at the frank hamer article? I rewrote most of it, eliminating inflamatory language, trying to cite controversial issues, and more cites are coming this week. I am really trying to contribute positively. Thanks again. old windy bear 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

<after edit conflict with both OldWindybear AND Katefan0 - geez, it took me a long time to write this, I guess>Thanks Oldwindybear - you are very welcome. I am certain you are trying hard to do the right thing. We have so many policies (which should be strictly followed), guidelines (which should usually be followed), and conventions (which people will get mad at you if you don't follow) that I know it is tough to learn the ropes. Fortunately, most of our policies and guidelines are good ones, overall. Even though it is hard to do sometimes, two of our best policies are Assume Good Faith and Don't bite the newcomers. Taken together, they mean that we will try to give the benefit of the doubt to the other user, especially new users. It can be trying sometimes because some new users are not really here to help build an encyclopedia. They may be here to promote their own agenda, to slant an article towards their own view, or even to write an article about themselves. But most new users are just trying to learn the ropes, so we try to help them. I can tell you from personal experience that Katefan0 is one of our very best, one of our very fairest administrators. She can bring the "tough love" if people are in an edit war, or if someone is trying to put stuff in an article that just doesn't beong in an encyclopedia, but if you play by the rules, she will absolutely be fair to you. Please let me know if I can do anything to help you learn about Wikipedia. Finally, for any future conflict you might have, please look over the Dispute Resolution Process. Coming to an individual like Kate or myself is always fine, but we are volunteers here just like you. We just happen to have received a vote of trust by the community to get a few extra tools. Therefore, none of us are online all the time, nor are we "responsible" for fixing each and every problem here. Going through the dispute resolution process step-by-step is the best way to ensure you are doing the right thing in any conflict. Best, Johntex\^talk 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Johntex thanks again John and yes, I am trying to do the right thing. Yes also that I need to read the rules, and use the guidelines in situations which arise. Thanks for the guidance. Kate is good people, and I am truly sorry I ever argued with her. Well, old men are not immune from mistakes! I will try harder. Thanks for the guidance, and I will study the rules more than I have. Take care, and have a good evening. old windy bear 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history: Coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject is currently holding elections for project coordinators. Any member of the project may nominate themselves and all are encouraged to vote here. The elections will run until February 5.

--Loopy ^e 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I think that someone of your knowledge and experience is a great asset to the project (as you've probably discovered, most of us are not formally students of history); obviously, I hope that you'll stick around regardless of what the election results may be. —Kirill Lokshin 03:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

>]]hin Kirill, I don't expect to win as your assistant, but originally had hoped to contribute to the project in some capacity. I think though they are going in a dirction different than where I am going, so I am probably more useful doing what I am doing -- trying to help where asked in non-military history, (except for the Carolinians, I wrote a book on that dynasty though I never could get it published!) Kirill, I don't think they want a historian, especially a military historian, which is okay, this is a democracy. I do appreciate your kind thought. I will go on to work on some other projects -- i think the whole Mongol Empire series needs to be rewritten, for instance, and leave the military history project for those who are elected. But thank you for thinking of meold windy bear 05:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

>]]hin Kirill! I don't know if you are following the current revisions on the Battle of Tours, but the tag has been removed, and Palm dogg and myself reworked the conclusions to better fit wikipedia's format, and address concerns of a user who felt the conclusions were correct, but inappropriately worded for an encyclopedia. He was right. I did the rewrite, then Palmdogg, who is quite good, split the conclusion ("After Tours") into sections, making it a great deal easier for people to see how the perception of the battle has evolved through the centuries and through the cultural matrix. Kirill, the article is almost ready for consideration as a model article. ALMOST, and I will get it finished shortly. Kirill, I was going to start from scratch with basically rewriting the whole series on the Mongol Empire, prior to the Military Coordinators election, (there are a list of issues with the current articles a mile long, which I can send you later if you wish, along with some source listings, and general thoughts -- we really, for instance, ignore the incredible impact of the two lengthy female regencies over the largest continuous land empire in history! And there is little information -- other than what I have added, on the fact that the ONLY reason Europe did not crumble under the Mongol lash is simply internal politics; Batu Khan loathed Ogedei's son, and his mother, and the feeling was mutual -- that dispute, which lingered until Mongke Khan became Great Khan, kept Batu from unleashing his army on Europe -- he had to keep it posted east, to protect him from his cousins!), but that really falls into the province of yourself and your assistants once the election is over. I also have notes I have made on edits I was starting on the Islamic wars of expansion, the Byzantine Empire, and the Carolingian Empire, if the coordinator responsible for that area is interested at all? I did greatly appreciate your vote -- I guess I have not been around long enough. I am probably going to shift to the culture wars, movies, music, and the arts, once Tours and Frank Hamer are completed. ANYWAY, i did not want to start any major projects in the Military history arena until after the election, and then, if you want my materials, I would be delighted to send them to you. Kirill, you are going to do a GREAT job. You are an amazingly gifted historian, especially for someone self taught! (though as Essjay told me once, too much is made of degrees!) You also get along well with other people. ANYWAY, again, i wanted to offer this material, if the assistant or yourself is interested once the elections are complete...old windy bear 04:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

English history

I noted your involvement with Battle of Tours and was curious about whether you have any interest in English history vis a vis the monarchy. I've just gotten ahold of a few interesting books on Henry VII/VIII and related royalty, and am currently trying to improve Margaret Tudor, which could be a much better article than it is currently. If you have any interest, pop on by. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC

Katefan0<Hi Kate! YES, I have considerable interest in english history - I am a big fan of Henry II and his mad sons, including of course Richard Lion Heart, (you have to admire a guy who spends less than a year of his reign in the country, doesn't speak the language, yet last year was voted by the British public as the second greatest monarch of history!) I will pop on by, and after some research, give it a go. I am finishing the 4th book I have read on Frank Hamer and Bonnie and Clyde, and will add a book on Margaret Tudor to the library list for tomorrow. (tuesdays is the day my family takes me to the Library of Congress for research!) Thank you for thinking about me, and yes, I will be delighted to help. Did you like the work at the Battle of Tours? I am really proud of that article. I resourced it like crazy also! (I read arabic, so it was a little easier than some!) Anyway, yes, I am delighted to help, thank you for thinking about me, see you on that site! old windy bear 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0<Hi Kate! Went and looked, it does need work, i am starting with the internet sources available, while I wait to go to the Library of Congress, (like http://englishhistory.net/tudor.html) Thanks again, I will certainly do my best to help, and I am delighted and honored you asked me. Did you see I volunteered for the Military History Project? I really do want to help, and again, thank you so much for asking me! old windy bear 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You bet, glad for your help. My biggest objection with articles like this is that they're defined by their marriages. Of course in reality that was what often defined women in that age -- but there is more leeway for royalty, and I think a better biographical encyclopedia article can be created about someone like her that is actually ABOUT her, not just a laundry list of marriages. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 20:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0^{[[User talk:Katefan0|(Hi Kate, I agree absolutely. When what I remember about her, she was a major player for a time in royal politics, and that needs to be emphasized rather than "she married x, and her progeny were y and z." That kind of article really objectifies women, in my opinion, and minimalizes them. I will tell you another place we need to address that -- the Mongol Empire. Twice, as I remember, women ruled for at least 3-5 years until enough Princes of the Blood could be gathered from the far corners of the Empire to elect a Great Khan. Yet we have little information on these reigns, which were EVERY BIT AS IMPORTANT AS THE KHAN'S REIGN! Anyway, I am at work on it, and will concentrate on her involvement with the royal politics of the day, which again, I believe remembering she was a MAJOR player in -- but which the current article does not reflect! THANKS for thinking of me, and letting me help! old windy bear 20:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)}

Please don't edit someone else's talk edits.

I noticed that you significantly edited another user's talk edits. [2] Please don't do that. While the user's edit was not civil, your edit was inapprporiate and equally as uncivil. Please sse WP:CIVIL. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(talk) I certainly agree -- when did this occur? I had made those mistakes when I first began, and even until I was specifically given the rules. Which are you referring to? I am unware of having done so recently, since other editors laid down the rules on that -- and I was sorry for doing so. When are you referring to, please, and where? I am honestly not aware of any such edit's since the period in question. so I would knowing what you are referring to.old windy bear 16:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

See diff link provided above. It was a little while ago, but you were brought to my attention by that user so I began an investigation. I don;t think anythign beyodn this warrants a response, but it wasn't reverted and I thought you should know.Gator (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

.Gator I was told I could not remove that -- or I would. If you have the authority to do so, I would appreciate your doing so. If you read the discussions on this page, my responses, where they were wrong, were brought to my attention, and I have corrected that. I have no problem with your bringing it to my attention. One thing the service taught me -37 years ago, can you believe it? -- is acceptance of responsibility. But if you can remove that, I would appreciate it. I don't feel such should be on the page. The discussion page, unless it is the user page, really should be for discussion of the article, which is exactly what I am trying to do. Thanks...old windy bear 16:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I reverted it already so it says what was originally stated.Gator (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Gator Excellent! Thank you. it will not happen again. When I first arrived on the site, I didn't make enough effort to differiniate between those who are here to contribute, and those who are here to amuse themselves, nor did I fully understand the rules. If you will look at my edits or work since, you will see the difference. I am NOT one of the users who wants only to mock or vandalize. I like to think my own little bit of knowledge may be of some use, and I appreciate any help i can get. I did see you are a marine, and as a wartime vet, I thank you for your service. I was just a grunt, but the GI bill paid for my first 2 degrees, so I did get something positive out of the Vietnam conflict other than wounds, lol. old windy bear 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Congradulations Oldwindybear, I'm impressed to see you are making your way into a star wikipedian. Keep up the good work. --CyclePat 00:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat What a nice thing to say! Thank you! Before i "found wikipedia" I was finishing another degree on a scholarship, and reading history, which I have done all my life. And that was it. You, Kate, JohnTex, Kirill, Essjay, have really reached out to me, and encouraged me to use my brain -- which believe it or not remains fairly useful, despite the rest of my health not being so hot! -- and given me a purpose; to help make this the best site I can. THANK YOU for the kind words. I am truly trying. old windy bear 01:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

the Battles of Charles Martel

Palm dogg sorry it took so long, the book was late -- here is a good list of the battles of Charles Martel -- if you would put them in a battle box in the Charles Martel article, or the Battle of Tours, whichever you feel most appropriate! The Charlamagne list is coming, and thank you greatly for working with me. THE BATTLES OF CHARLES MARTEL:

Battle of Cologne Battle of Amblève Battle of Vincy, Battle of Tours Battle of Avignon, Battle of Nîmes, Battle of Montfrin battle of the River Berre Battle of Narbonne.

Thanks again for working with me! old windy bear 04:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Finished. Here's a link to the Charles Martel campaignbox. Palm_Dogg 12:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Palm_Dogg Excellent job! I will have Charlamagne's to you within a couple of days. You are the MAN on Campaignboxs! I will tell you two other truly great generals who need them = Belisarius, and Subutai, when you get a chance take a look. If I get the battles, will you do the boxes for them too? old windy bear 13:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sure. Belisarius and Subutai are pretty awesome commanders, so I'll definitely do boxes for them. Whenever you're ready, just put them on my Talk Page. I put the Martel campaignbox on his page, as well as a personal infobox. Regarding the Military Wikiproject, this is really more of a hobby for me while I'm between jobs, so I tend to just do pages on articles I'm interested in. I may actually switch back to movies soon; I'm working on a page for one of my favorite films by Akira Kurosawa, Ran (film), plus I still have to work on Starship Troopers. Palm_Dogg 16:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Palm_DoggThanks, you are a pleasure to work with. Movies are a hobby of mine too! I just got an original copy (okay, orginal print on dvd) of Akira Kurosawa's treasure, Seven Samurii. Starship Troopers I hated. Where to begin? He admitted he did not read the book! They turn the real poltiical issues into jokes, no battle armour, the bugs are totally misrepresented -- I hated it. Made a mockery out of what was and is a great book that asks some pretty intense questions -- should the franchise be totally without civil duty? Why do men fight? Why should they fight? Oh well, thanks again, and I will get you the info on Charlamagne first, then Belisarius, then Subutai. You and I work well together, and I thank you!old windy bear 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I should have clarified: just the book Starship Troopers (the movie did suck). If you know of any outside literature that discusses it, I'd really appreciate it. Palm_Dogg 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Palm_DoggI will try to find it. I took a class in contemporary american literature in college, and Starship Troopers, the novel, was specifically discussed. I did my paper for that course on Starship Troopers! It was of course 30 years ago, but believe it or not, some of my college notebooks are at my sisters. (they were at my Mom's till she died last year) I did a 25 page paper on Starship Troopers. i cannot drive any distance anymore, but my wife promises to take me over next weekend. I am pretty sure that paper is in those notebooks, and they contained a huge numbers of references in the late 60's and early and mid 70's as the novel was very controversial then, as you know. The references would be old, but I think would be intersting to you -- the book was a hugely divisive one in collge in the 70's. In addition, I just read an article recently on it, and will try to remember where! I would have liked to have worked on the military history coordinators project, but I (like Al Gore!) just don't have the votes. Oh well, I enjoy working with you, and I can still freelance. Did you see the debate -- I was in the midst of it -- on Podkayne of Mars? Edits on that were controversial. Oh well, I promise, I will find the stuff on Starship Troopers for you.old windy bear 16:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Awesome! Thanks! Palm_Dogg 20:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Palm_DoggMy pleasure -- I have really been trying to get the Battle of Tours issue resolved. No one really disagrees with the majority opinion, but one user wanted it worded differently. he was right in that it was confusing - and you took GREAT care of that problem. As to the paper, I will be curious what you think of my writing now compared to when I was 28! I do think it will help. I remember that paper very well, beacuse I was writing for the University newspaper, and an article got written on my presentation of it - you know, back the, there was a very strong school of thought that Heinlein was presenting a pro-facist Neo-Nazi form of government in Starship Troopers. I argued, and successfully, I proudly add, that was simplistic and wrong. NONE of the elements of the third reich were there, the camps, the political arrests -- I argued that Heinlein was arguing that the franchise should NOT be free, that civic responsibility and duty should go hand in hand with the franchise. I am not so sure he was not way ahead of his time, and absolutely right. At any rate, I gave a very heavily sourced paper arguing that, among other things. It will be my pleasure to go get it for you, and thanks again for all your help! old windy bear 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

user: Palm dogg Hey buddy! Working on Charlamagne today, and I have another to add to our list of generals, if you are interested -- Alp Arslan, the "Valiant Lion" who defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert! If he had not died quite young, he might have rivaled Alexander or Ghenghis Khan, he was that good. Interested in a campaign box for him? Also, if you need any help on the Moslem Conquest of North Africa and Battle of Carthage (698) (which is basically no article at all, just a stub, and the battle was a truly vital one, in the Byzantine loss of it's african themes!) let me know. They could both stand some expansion...AND, i will have the paper and notebook on Starship Troopers for you next weekend. Hey, I am willing to mail you those materials if you want them.old windy bear 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, I can do that, although it might make more sense to start out with "Battles of the Seljuk Turks" and then gradually make new campaignboxes as articles on Arslan's battles come up. I'm actually not working on those other two articles. User:Wendell asked me to take a look at them (I keep a list of articles I'm actively editing on my main page under "Projects"). Thanks for the mailing offer, but I'd probably lose them. If you've got all your original citations, just put them on the Starship Troopers page or the User:Palm dogg/Starship Troopers page I'm using for major edits. Either way, I'll figure out how to integrate them into the article. Palm_Dogg 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think you are right -- he was the second great Sultan of the Seljuks, and we ought to start with the formation of the dynasty, and work to him. I will put together a page of projects once Tours is okayed. (that is an excellent idea, thanks!)I will start on that as soon as I get Kate's sign off on the Tours adjustments - you were a huge help on that, greatly appreciated! The Roman Empire, from Augustus to the Holy Roman Empire, via the Bzyantines, are my primary field of expertise, though I am pretty well read for an american (since I read Arabic and Greek) in the history of Islam. I will copy the citations next saturday night, and put them on the the User:Palm dogg/Starship Troopers page. Do you have any interest in my conclusions and the reasoning behind them? If so, I can shorten that part to a page or so. I literally worked an entire semester on that paper and thought it was the best I ever wrote. (and I have faith you can do better!) Thanks again for the help, and Charlamagne should be ready Wednesday. I really would have liked to have worked on the military history project, but the votes just are not there. Oh well, I will continue to freelance. Take care, and have a good week, and the citations will be posted as noted next saturday night. You are a good person, and it is a pleasure to work with you.old windy bear 02:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Battle of San Jacinto

Feel free to do whatever you'd like with the article, as well as the Mongol series; your expertise would be very welcome ;-)

More generally: in my experience, it's almost impossible to assign tasks to people here, so most things are done on a volunteer basis. If nobody feels like doing it, we have no real way of getting it done, unfortunately. —Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Kirill LokHi Kirill! I will do the San Jacinto Article as soon as I finish the Battle of Tours article in toto; it is very close to being complete, and a very good article, I am proud to say. The Frank Hamer article is also winding it's way to completion with Kate's help, bless her heart. The Mongol Empire I would be reluctant to undertake until after the Military Coordinator's election is finished, and things up and running there, becuse it might well conflict -- most of that empire's history can literally be linked and almost defined by it's battles! -- with the new assistant coordinator's ideas. I had sort of figured after those elections to slip over into biographies, and (please don't laugh) literature. I prefer military history, especially the Roman Empire, Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires, the Mongols, and the period of Arab expansion. (other than the Mongol explosion onto the world stage, the period of Arab expansion is unmatched for empire building that lasted -- as you know, Alexander the Great built an empire second only to Ghenghis Khan's in size -- but with his death, it fell apart! And Kirill, reading the Arab histories in Arabic is REALLY fascinating, because it really does not accurately translate to English -- some of the concepts are so alien to our culture and mindset that translation is virtually impossible to do with great accuracy! The Arab word for "honor" for instance, carries a whole plethoria of obligations and values in that one word!) But after the elections I think I will go to literature, and biographies. (I don't see any support for my ideas in the Military coordinator's election, which is okay -- this is an election, and my ideas did not ring with the voters!) Kate had me look at Margaret Tudor's article the other night, and after doing some research on that period and the Tudors and Stuarts, I was able, I think, to add to that article substantially. I hope to do the same with others, and with articles on great books. I wish I could have helped you with the military project, but the way that is set up, it really is for the assistants to fill that role. I would have enjoyed working for you though, you are a genuinely nice person -- a rarity in today's world, I am sorry to say! Thanks again, and I will do San Jacinto, probably next week! Take care, and you will do very well with the Military project.old windy bear 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Edits

Hi - Ive noticed youve been making a lot of good edits lately and obviously have a lot of knowledge to draw from. Ive noticed many of the edits are one-liners in the lead paragraphs. I was hopeing you might consider expanding the ideas, with a section or paragraph, in the body of the article - per the MoS, the lead paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the article, and should not contain trivia or "unique" information, but be a high-level overview of the contents of the article, in effect repeating whats allready in the article summary style. That way readers get a over-view up front, if they want to read more they can drill down for more details in the article. Just a suggestion and thought to help improve overall article quality and content. --Stbalbach 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach Hello! Thank you for the compliment on the knowledge statment, and on the quality of the edits. I had been hitting a lot of the lead paragraphs on the theory that they could draw the reader in, into articles I think are meaningful. But you are right, I need to expand on the idea or topic, and in each case, i can do so. I will begin on that today. I appreciate your pointing that out to me -- because you are absolutely right, putting a unique idea or theme in the lead paragraph and not following it up can be confusing. THANKS, and I will correct it! Your thoughts are good ones, and will definately improve the overall article quality. I appreciate your help! old windy bear 16:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok great I just wanted to encourage expanding articles, which most need a lot of work, usually the lead section should be the last thing worked out, after the article is in good shape, the lead section summary writes its self pretty easily. But I understand where your coming from to make somthing more interesting. --Stbalbach 03:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach I think you are absolutely right on expanding the articles, and two i went back and did so tonight were the edits I had made on Caliph, and Mehmed the Conquerer. I thought your point was a good one, and I went into some depth on the points I had made -- and I thougth the expansion in both cases stegthened the articles, (and I am not done!) I welcome all the help I can get in good suggestions like yours to make my edits and articles better. Thanks! old windy bear 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Baghdad (1258)

OWB, hope you won't mind -- I ending up making some major revisions. I consulted both the New Yorker article and a recent book on Islamic history. I removed some of the material you added, because it was anecdotal and came from older, popular books. I think recent academic references are better. This removes some of the color, but I think that enough remains to show that the rape of the city was an atrocity.

We could add the anecdotes again, if we could find the original Islamic sources, or better current sources, and if it was made clear that these were possibly legends rather than something that actually happened. Zora 08:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora HI Zora, I understand the reasons for the edits. I did add more material, which was VERY carefully sourced, and will add more of the antedotes as I can source them more than with one work. (actually, before I add anything antecdotal, I will run it by you first) If you will notice, I used the Muslim historian Wassaf for much of my new material, and have sent for more. i read Arabic, so will be looking for Islamic sources, not western, before restoring anything else. I do think that readers need to know the extent of the destruction to the country as a whole -- there is no question the Mongol destruction of the canal and irrigation system turned the country into a desert overnight! Hopefully you will like the additions, becasue again, my intention is only to show the horrific extent of what Hulagu did, and it far exceded the normal Mongol sack -- remember that in the end, the city did surrender. The mongols did not have to take it entirely by force, which in the normal course of things, would call for some pillage and rape, but not entire destruction. Hulagu Khan hated the Caliph, probably because he was a symbol of a power greater than the Khans, and his feelings dictated his actions. By the way though, the material from The Mongol Warlords was published in 1998, so it is fairly modern! But I think you are right, we need Islamic sources, and I will get them.old windy bear 15:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora Hey Zora, we both found Ian Frazier's article -- he estimates the casalties as between 200,000 and 1 million, Wassaf said "hundreds of thousands," and Nowich estimated 800,000.old windy bear 19:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical numbers are often impressionistic. We have bureacracies that count things, and can say to the soldier how many U.S. Marines there are in a specific division. Older accounts are more on the order of ... "as far as the eye could see! There must have been 100,000 of them!" It's the same sort of problem that turns up when people give crowd estimates for demonstrations. The organizers say 100,000! and the police say 10,000! Sicker is a recent source, an academic source, and I trust him MORE than older, popularized histories.

The best way to handle this would be a list of estimates, referenced, with the date of the estimate, and whether secondary or primary source, added.

As for the irrigation -- again, instead of sparring over what's true, we need to get cites from various authorities, so that readers can see that that there's a dispute. That would be the fairest way.

I'll do what I can, but I'm over-committed at the moment. Not just Wikipedia, but Distributed Proofreaders, my Zen group, and my local Linux group. But let's see if we can put our disagreements IN the article. Zora 04:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora Okay, sounds good to me -- I will start putting together sources that attribute the destruction of the irrigation system solely to the Mongols, and estimates of the death toll when the great sack occurred, and we can compare the source notes.

Sicker is a fairly modern source, but he is a western source, not an Islamic one, and we also need the muslim records, those which remain -- up till the great sack, the Caliphate had bureacracies which counted, as did the Roman Empire -- arguably the best sourcing. To this day, among historians, you know as I do that the best sourced work of all time remains the original "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbons, because of his exhaustive sourcing, and I mean exhaustive, he took his entire life to travel and read old records in the original Latin or Greek, and to this day, is acknowedged as #1 in sourcing, due to his exhaustive use fo the records of the Roman bureacracies - for instance, for his citation on the size fo the Roman army at Manzikert, he literally went and found the records from that age, authorizing the particular units, their size, etc. Incredible! Sicker is okay - I have read him too, but he is not as good as Norwich, the recognized authority on the Bzyantine Empire, for instance, on original sourcing.

you are absolutely right on the impressionist problem with numbers. That is why I hesitate to attach real numbers to Carolingian armies -- even with Charlamagne, who was devoted to recreating an empire with records, they are not reliable. Most historians agree that for instance, the old Roman records are accurate -- witness again Gibbons getting the original manifests for the troop payments in Greek from Constandinople, for the army the Eastern Empire fielded at Manzikert! But lets face it, most modern historians are simply not going to go to that kind fo effort!

you are a better writer than I am, so I will gather a list of estimates and their sources, as to causalties when Hulagu Khan attacked Bagdad, and forward them to you so you can organize them as you see fit when you have time;

ditto for the irrigation system controversy; i will gather original sourcing, including Sicker, Norwich, Gibbons, -- and a number of more modern ones, like Nicolles, who only started publishing in England (he's british!) in 1990, with his last work published in 1998! Also, since this has become a very big environmental issue -- look what happens if type thing - I can look for references in the environmental science area.

Again, I want to help, not be a pain, so I will gather the materials, send them to you, and let you organize them however you want. You are an excellant writer, (not that I am bad, but your article formatting was better than mine!). If I can help on anything else, just let me know. I am a disabled vet, and have plenty of time, lol. My goal was never to "spar" with you, but help where I could in making it a great article. You do good work, and I would be delighted to help gather information via sourcing anywhere else if you let me know where and what. old windy bear 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Consistency

Amazing work! It looks to be quickly developing into a very good article.

We do, incidentally, have a recommended structure for battle articles (see the "Article structure" section of the project page); obviously, some deviation from this is to be expected, particularly in larger and better-developed articles, but I think it makes for a good starting point. The obvious problem is not a lack of design but a lack of workforce; our worklist (which has only recently been created) shows quite clearly our overall weakness.

Speaking of the worklist, incidentally, we're somewhat short on Roman and medieval battles. Since you're a historian, perhaps you could provide some advice as to which ones are more "important" to work on? —Kirill Lokshin 01:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill LokThank you very much for the kind words on the article on Ain Jalut -- I am sorry I did not know we had a recommended structure for battle articles -- but I do now and will adhere to it in finishing up Ain Jalut. The article is beginning to take shape -- and Kirill, it demonstrates, I hope, what I had wanted to do if I had able to be your assistant. Show why the battle happened, what led to it, what was happening historically, then the battle itself, then the aftermath -- with some reverberating through the centuries, literally! I wish I had made the assistant position -simply because I really do believe I could have helped you. The Roman list will be HUGE because of the time frame we are talking about. The Republic had 200 years of significant warfare (including Hannibal and the Carthigian struggles) 450 years of empire in the west, and 1100 more in the East. Nonetheless, as a military historian, these are the 10 most critical -- in my opinion, and I can back it up with Gibbons, Norwich, et al -- Roman battles, defining "Roman" as republic, united empire, and separate empires, west, and then East alone:

• 1) Scipio Africanus in 204 BC forced Hannibal to return to Carthage, where Scipio defeated him at Zama (202 BC)- this defeat assured the ascendency of Rome as the paramount power in the centuries to come, and marked the onset of the end for Carthage as an independant power.
• 2) Spartacus was killed in the battle of the river Silarus, putting down a slave rebellion which required the entire might of the empire to put it down, and caused the creation of the first Triumvirate. Pompey aligned himself with Julius Caesar and Marcus Crassus in the First Triumvirate in 70 B.C. -- this political alignment finished what Sulla had started, effectively ending the Roman Republic, and setting the stage for the Empire, though trappings of a republic existed till Augustus became the first emperor after the era of the Second Triumvirate and subsequent wars.
• 3) Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (A.D. 9), an alliance of Germanic tribes led by Arminius ambushed and wiped out three Legions of unsuspecting Roman allies. The battle established the Rhine as the boundary of the Roman Empire for the next few hundred years, until the decline of the Roman influence in the West. The defeat was so traumatic for Augustus he ceased wars of expansion -- and set in motion inevitable problems for the Empire beyond the Rhine.
• 4) Battle of Milvian Bridge, October 28, 312. Though Constantine the Great was not baptized until he was on his deathbed, his conversion, according to official Christian sources, was the immediate result of an omen before his victory in the battle. This battle, and the aftermath, made christinity the official religion of the Roman Empire and assured the establishment of the christian faith as a world force.
• 5) The sack of Rome by Alaric on August 24, 410, Alaric and his Visigoths burst in by the Salarian gate on the northeast of the city. She who had been mistress of the world now lay at the feet of foreign enemies. Ironically, savaging Rome had never been Alaric's ambition. He saw the greatness of the civilization of the Empire, and a place in it for his people. If they had given him that, history would have been at temporarily different. (whether an infusion of new blood would have reversed the decline is highly unlikely, but it might have delayed it as much as another century!) This really was the day the Roman Empire of the West died.
• 6) The Battle of Chalons - Aetius assured his place in history by defeating Attilia the Hun in the only defeat the Scourge of God ever suffered, and though our article disagrees -- and I have not edited it --Gibbons, Creasy, all the great historians agree this battle was one of the 15 most important of history. It assured the continuence of Bzyantium, as Attila for the remainder of his life looked west, and thus assured the Empire of the East would go on.
• 7) The Bzyantine Empire survives sieges of Constantinople in 717-18 AD, which, if successful, would have ended the Eastern Empire, and assured world ascendancy for Islam.
• 8) Battle of Manzikert occurred on August 26, 1071 between the Byzantine Empire and Seljuk Turkish forces led by Alp Arslan, resulting in the defeat of the Byzantine Empire and the capture of Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes, and in the long term, assured the loss of the anatolian heartland of the Bzyantine Empire, and it's fall.
• 9) The Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), originally designed to conquer Jerusalem by taking Egypt first, instead, in 1204, conquered and sacked the Orthodox Christian city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, establishing a shadow Latin Empire for 59 years, and ended what was left of the real Eastern Empire, though a shadow would remain for another 190 years.

• 10) The Fall of Constantinople came after a two-month siege by Mehmed II on May 29, 1453.

the loss of the Mother of Cities, showed the West how dangerous the Ottomans were and foretold centuries of strife with them. I would start with these ten, though the seige of Constandinople is not one battle, but it's importance historically should render it in the military project. These ten were picked out of a lsit of over 100 for the greatest impact militarily and culturally.

Medivial Battles: We can start with the Carolingians, and go from there.

NOTE: THIS LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE BATTLES OF THE ROMAN ERA, WHICH, IN THE CASE OF MANZIKERT, WOULD MAKE THE MEDIVIAL LIST ALSO!

• 1) Battle of Toulouse; a stunning upset victory in 721 by Duke Eudes gave Charles Martel badly needed time to build the veteran army which would stand him in such good stead at Tours, 11 years later, when he turned back the most serious attempt Islam ever made during the height of the Islamic Expansion Era at taking Europe, as it conquered the remains of the Roman and Persian Empire.
• 2) Battle of Tours -- turned back the most serious attempt Islam ever made during the height of the Islamic Expansion Era at taking Europe, as it conquered the remains of the Roman and Persian Empire.
• 3) Battle of Narbonne in 759 Pippin the Short retakes the last Islamic outpost on this side of the Pyrenees
• 4) In 778, Charlamagne led the Neustrian army across the Western Pyrenees, while the Austrasians, Lombards, and Burgundians passed over the Eastern Pyrenees. The armies met at Zaragoza and received the homage of Soloman ibn al-Arabi and Kasmin ibn Yusuf, the Moorish rulers. Zaragoza did not fall soon enough for Charles, however. He could not trust the Moors, nor the Basques, whom he had subdued by conquering Pamplona and Barelona, establishing the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a permanent buffer zone against Islam, which became the basis, along with the King of Asturias, named Pelayo (718-737, who started his fight against the Moors in the mountains of Covadonga 722) and his descendants, for the Reconquista until all of the Muslims were expelled from Iberia. (though this is a series of battles, it is one campaign with a great many minor battles, but huge historial significance -- he left Frankish outposts in Iberia, the Moors never again came into Europe proper, and started the Reconquista.
• 5) Battle of Hastings on the morning of Saturday, October 14, 1066, Duke William of Normandy killed Harold, last Saxon King of England, and assured the mixture of Norman and Saxon which would produce Imperial Great Britain down through the centuries.

These are just five medivial battles, just enough to give you an idea of what I look for -- great historical significance in the aftermath -- what it caused decades, CENTURIES, down the road!

I hesitate to offer advice, but I would split the Roman Era Battles thusly:

• First, a list of ten most important battles of the Roman Era in toto, as noted above, then split as follows with secondary lists of:
• 1) 10 most important for Rome, the Republic
• 2)10 most important for Rome, East or West; while one Empire
• 3)10 most important for Rome, East Empire
• 4) 10 most important for Rome, West Empire (I can provide all the above)

The medivial era, I would split among the Carolingians, and Ottonians, (the Carolingians down to Otto the Great, the Holy Roman Empire, and developing France and Germany, the English wars of conquest on the continant, and finally, central European wars, including Poland, Hungary, et al.

The Mongol Era deserves a whole separate section, and Ain Jalut is the most important battle to be totally unknown, just about, in the west. You don't read about it in American schools, but it probably determined the fate of the world, in that it clearly is the moment the Mongols began imploding. Just some thoughts! I wish you all the best, and wish I had been able to help. You are a really nice person, and would have been fun to work with and for.old windy bear 18:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin"

Thank you!

I would like to thank you for your support for my candidacy for the Military history WikiProject coordinator position. I am now the Lead Coordinator, and I intend to do my best to continue improving the project. If you ever have any questions or concerns regarding my actions, or simply new ideas for the project, be sure to let me know! —Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, you will do a great job, and I congratulate you! I supported you because you are the best person for the job, and will do a great job. I assume the two asssistant coordinator positions went to Loppy and Miborovsky? Would you or either of them be interested in the notes I had put together on rewriting the entire series of Articles on the Mongol Empire? (I was also working on Batu Khan's article, and was going to proceed from there after I finished that article and of course The Battle of Ain Jalut). Kirill, what did you think of my suggestions on the battles of the Roman Republic/Empire/Bzyantine Empire, and dividing the medivial world between the west, and basically the Islamic world, and then the Mongol era? I was really curious what you thought of my ideas on Rome, and the history framework I suggested, and the 10 I selected as being so vital as needing immediate attention. I really would like your opinion on that! Take care, and again, you will do a great job. old windy bear 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems like you're the only member of the project with a strong interest in the Mongol Empire, so I think you should hold on to the notes for now; if anyone else drops by, we'll direct them to you.

I generally agree with your other comments. Most of the battles you mentioned have already been added to the worklist; I'll add the remaining ones shortly. As I said earlier, though, the major problem at this point is manpower; I suspect that this project will still have plenty of work to do a year from now ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 00:38, 6

February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, I wish I could have kept working on the project, but i felt the voters spoke, and they didn't want my work or the type of article (more comprehensive, emphasizing the social and cultural influences of the battle as well as simply who beat who). I will miss doing the military history work, especially since that was my field, (not that I will drop it completely, I will monitor the articles I felt I basically wrote), but I will move on to literature and general entertainment. I will honestly miss working with you also. I wish I had been given an opportunity to assist you, I really felt I could have done so. WELL, the voters have spoken! I am surprised I am the only member who was interested in the Mongol Empire -- Lord, it shattered the existing order, and altered Islam, especially, forever, in addition to being an incredible influence in shaping Russia! I am afraid we are really centered on Rome, for instance, to the detriment of (for instance) the Caliphate, and the Mongol Empire. Did you think it is because most of our members are american, and american schools relatively ignore other cultures in favor of Rome as the overriding cultural and historical power? Anyway, take care. I am very happy for you, and sorry I could not help.old windy bear 00:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, I forgot, I also had begun to gather materials for a comprehensive rewrite of the Roman Era battles -- whichever assistant is taking over, or yourself, might find them interesting. I had Gibbons original "Decline and Fall" in it's full (unbelievably lengthy and sourced), all of Norwich and Bernard Lewis's works, (some of Lewis's historical work on Islam does bear on the Byzantines, in particular), and 20 other various books on Rome. (believe it or not I have 2,000 books at home, 200 of which are pure military history, others, like Gibbons, a mix of military and cultural) What I had sent for was a thesis I helped a friend with many years ago on the Roman Empire where she concentrated on the military evolution of the empire, in particular, on the shift over the centuries from citizen raised legions to barbarian mercenary legions, etc. (she still had it, and with the notes and sourcing cites and quotes in the notes, it was a notebook of over 250 pages! I remember it well, as I did much of the research for her!) I think it would be incredibly useful when it gets here, and would gladly forward it to whoever is going to be working on Roman battles. old windy bear 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Military Projects Coordinator!

Greetings Military Project Coordinator!

Congratulations again. I sent you a message - which you may not have had time to answer - on my notes on the Roman Era, and materials I had sent for on it, which I would gladly forward to whichever assistant you have assigned to that task.

On the Mongols, I am finishing up the work I was doing, and wanted you to look at Mongol Military Tactics and Organization, which I reorganized, put in categories, sourced, rewrote where necessasry, and I think you will find that it now makes a nice edition to the military project. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Conclusion

Also, I had on my list the Mongol invasion of Europe, which was also tagged, and rightly so. I also reorganized that article, put in categories, sourced, rewrote where necessasry, and I think you will find that it now makes a nice edition to the military project also, if you wish to check it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_europe

Neither article was sourced at all when i got them. Fortunately, I have all those books in my own library, was able to check, do sourcing, set up references, and wanted to let you know so you could check them. I am also finishing Ain Jalut before I go. Again, the Roman Era materials I sent for would be valuable (along with the standards, Gibbons, Norwich, Runican, et al, all of which I have also) for the expansion of the battles of macrohistorial importance during the Roman Era.

Take care, Kirill, and hope you like the "new look" on Mongol Military tactics and organization, and Mongol Invasion of Europe -- I cleaned both up, plus the article on Batu Khan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batu_Khan -- this one needed sourcing and references also, and I took care of that, and they are all legitimate) Let me know on this Roman stuff.

Respectfully, old windy bear 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be best for you to hold on to your notes for the time being; we haven't really had time to set anything formal up yet. Alternately, you could put them on a personal subpage (like this one) and we could take a look at them when we're ready to work on the material.

On another note, great work on the Mongol articles! I hope you find time to do some more work in that area on occasion, even if most of your editing will be on other topics. 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin Hi Kirill! First, thank you for the kind comments on the work done on the Mongol articles. I am pleased myself. I have been VERY careful to source everything, and I honestly believe they are well written, imformative, and fit into a general group of articles I hope to eventually finish on the Mongol Era, the Pax Mongolica, and the later Nomad Invasions, primarily Timur the Lame, (Tamerlane). I appreciated your thinking of me to continue working in that area, which I will discuss shortly, after I explain why I cannot put the Roman info online easily. Kirill, the only problem with putting the Roman info I sent for on a sub page it is over a hundred pages of notes and source information, some of it in Greek and Latin. (I read both, but a lot of historians don't) A thought occurred to me, and I humbly offer it to you. I like you as a person, (our interaction on wikipedia has certainly been pleasant!) and want you to succeed as Military Projects Coordinator. I am a military historian. True, I am not limited to interest in one area - witness my edits in the article on Spike, (of Buffy and Angel fame!), but I am best suited by training to work in military history. While I am disabled physically, I have a huge personal library, much of it military history, and a good working knowledge of the subject. What i don't know, I can certainly find out, as I am a good researcher. I have the library of congress nearby, and am on good terms with a number of professors at the local universities. Would you be interested in letting me just work for you directly on projects in military history? For instance, if you could use me, you could direct me to either finish editing all the Mongol Era articles, and try to link them in a series of articles that provides our readers with a good grasp of the historical events, the personalities, the military tactics -- and why they were so unstoppable world wide -- and the battles, in context with the times. OR, you could shift me tonight to work on Rome, and merely tell me what you wanted me to do, and I would set out to do it, to the best of my ability.m Seriously, if you think Rome is a greater priority, and would like to have me on your team, tell me what you want done, and I will do it, and finish the Mongol project when there is time. If I work for you, I will work on what you feel is most important, period, and other projects when there is time. Well, I wanted to at least offer my assistance. I felt at the elections that people did not want my work here, but perhaps that was an incorrect way to assess it. I leave it to you. If you feel I could be of value, tell me what you want me to do, and I will proceed on it as swiftly as possible. If not, I understand, and will go on over to edit the Buffyverse! old windy bear 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

That's an extremely generous offer; thank you! I obviously don't want to force you into working on military history if you'd rather be editing something else; but if you don't mind, I could certainly use your help.

As far as what's more important: our coverage of both Mongol and Roman military history is pretty sparse (most of the Roman battles, except for a few from the Second Punic War, are merely stubs). I would suggest getting the Mongol articles fleshed out first—there are very few other Wikipedians working in that field—and then moving on to the various Roman articles as time permits. The order in which you might approach the various articles in these areas is entirely up to you; given that both of them are rather outside my particular area of interest, you'll be in a better position to evaluate which events are more important. —Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kirill LokshinKirill, I am honored to work for you, and my expertise is in military history. Besides, you are a truly nice person, and it is a genuine honor to work for you. I will go ahead, since you have directed it, and finish the group of Mongol Era articles, which should not take more than 10 days to finish, as I have all the materials I need already. Would you like me then to literally start at the beginning, and begin with the battles of the Roman Republic, which began to become macrohistorical with the First Punic War. I would start there, work through the second Punic war, and then down to Sulla. Caesar and Pompey will require a HUGE amount of work, as will Sulla -- but I will have the materials on them here also. If this is what you want me to do, merely say the word, and that is what I will do. By the 18th I will be done with the Mongol Era articles and begin work with the Roman Republic and work my way literally to the Empire.old windy bear 03:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! —Kirill Lokshin 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, I am at your disposal. Unless I hear differently, I will go ahead and finish the Mongol Series of Articles, then begin literally from the early years of the expanding Roman Republic. In the interim, if you need me to do something else, just instruct me, and I will switch and take care of that at once. old windy bear 03:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, HI Boss! Today I worked on the Battle of Legnitz, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnica. I also did Hulagu Khan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan I did the same things, put in categories, divided the article into sections as policy calls for, sourced, and listed references, and external links. Too more mongol articles done! Meantime, user 130.113.128.11, who has vandalized before, repeatedly, changed the battlebox numbers with no sourcing or references, just vandalizing, in the article on Ain Jalut, and I reversed it, but wanted to ask you to take a look at stopping this user, who has not done good edit yet, and whose purpose seems solely to vandalize.(what is wrong with people who seem to have nothing better to do than vandalize!old windy bear 01:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! I'll try to keep an eye on the vandal; I suspect many of them have a (terribly misguided) impression that they can be the next Herostratus by meddling with Wikipedia. —Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill, I am glad you are pleased with the work on the Mongol articles, and I will be done with the whole series on time, as we discussed, and get to work on the Roman Era. I don't understand these vandals; why change numbers in a battle box when you don't even make the attempt to source the change, it is not backed by ANY emphirical historical evidence, and makes no sense! But you are doubtless right, many of them have a (terribly misguided) impression that they can be the next Herostratus by meddling with Wikipedia. Well, I will leave monitoring them to you, and keep working! Take care, and I will on Rome by next week. (again, though, I stress if you need me somewhere else, just tell me!) old windy bear 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok Kirill,I finished revising Ogedei Khan today, if you would be so kind as to check that, did the same things, added material, put it in sections appropriately, and heavily sourced, and added references, categories, and external links. The article is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96gedei_Khan I should be done with the remainder of the Khans, Mongol battles, and whole Mongol Empire section by next week, and at work on the Roman Republic, if you approve the work done on the Mongols. I also had to stop today and change some wording in the Bonnie and Clyde article. Users were attacking Kate for alleged errors, which really were wording issues. I tried to reword where possible to alleviate the problems. We also had the normal vandalizing. I don't understand why people waste their time fouling up a great project! Thanks! old windy bear 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good (keep in mind, of course, that your knowledge of Mongol history is rather better than mine, so my comments are of a general character). You shouldn't feel obligated to write daily status reports, incidentally; I'm sure you have many more interesting things to do ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

hin Thanks Kirill -- instead of bothering you with daily status reports, I wll just report to you when the entire Mongol Empire Era revision is wrapped up, and I am starting on Rome. That way you only get one report, with all the work listed, (since it is all basically related to the military history project -- heck, the Mongol Empire was solely a military empire from start to finish!). Take care, old windy bear 04:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello! I've warned the person. Let me know if they continue to vandalize. (Still haven't made it back to Margaret Tudor, just no time lately. Am about to make a quick trip over to Frank Hamer in a bit.) BTW, I was in a cab yesterday and we drove past the Vietnam memorial here in DC, made me think about you. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0Hi Kate! thanks for thinking about me. I have been there just once, and cried so hard that my wife had to wheel me away. I thought of my lost brothers, dead all these years, and for what? I remembered being spit on in National Airport, coming in for rehab at Walter Reed. Hard times! Has anyone told you you are a genuinely nice person, if not, allow me to do so! I hope you do like what i did with Margaret Tudor, and if you feel it needs more, merely say so, and it is done! I am mostly in Military Projects these days, but i am at your disposal Ma'am! Why Kate, why, did they send 54,000 of us to die, for nothing, and 300,000 busted up for life, why? I have not figured that out in 36 years and it haunts me. But thank you again for the kind thought. You are a genuinely good human being. As for that user, they just vandalized Bonnie and Clyde -- I corrected the vandalism, and then went to you. Why are people so venal as to interfere with a project like this, that just promises good for all? old windy bear 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Just came back. I see Katefan0 has warned them and they haven't been editing for 5 hours so it should be OK now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(Talk) Thanks! Kate is taking care of it -- what I don't understand, is why someone would simply waste their time and everyone elses by sheer vandalism...old windy bear 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer that without resorting to personal attacks on the people who vandalize. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather I understand (your stance, not the vandalism). I believe in this project -- it is not cheap talk, it means a disabled vet (me) gets up every day and works for free because I believe that Jimbo has an idea that means we can offer all the globe the greatest accumulation of knowledge, ever, period. For me, it means what skills i have left have a positive place to contribute. I do not understand those who would waste your time, or mine, with needless, stupid, vandalism. For what it is worth, you and Kate, the staff, who also volunteer, have my admiration. I try to contribute, and just scratch my head otherwise...Thanks for replying though, I appreciate the prompt and caring response.old windy bear 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like Wiki alf took care of him. Best, Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Thanks Tom - I worked for an hour to get the article back to normal -- we have worked for months to get an article that everyone was comfortable with, and some crazy school site destroys it in minutes! I don't understand people...thanks for responding! old windy bear 19:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Analisys

Hi Oldwindybear. I'm actually a little busy right now with deadlines at work and a possible pneumonia that may be starting. I'm sorry. I don't have as much time as I did the first time we met. I'm sure you can manage to keep your cool all while advocating the rights of wiki policy. When I have the time I will check out. 68.156.240.30 (I just checked it out. And it looks like he is a minimal vandalist). It also looks like he has been warned. If you have any specific concerns please ask me. As for rewording. Well, I can only say that a lot of people that contribute to wikipedia prefer to keep their wording. It's a POV (or fact within a POV) that they have figured out and they feel like they have added something. When you remove change the wording or the new sentence, the first impression is surprise. Then it's questioning... did I do it right? The once they realize it virtually the same thing or somewhat dissimilar (but with about the same meaning) they get mad. The good thing about wiki is that we can all work together to have better righting skills and everything can improve. The bad thing about wikipedia is that we can also work against each other. Well that's my scope on that. Will you please pray for my good health! Thank you. --CyclePat 03:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Pat, you are a thoroughly decent person whose health I will gladly pray for. I honestly tried on the Bonnie and Clyde article to address the folks concerns by quoting directly from the sources -- yes, you are right, they will still probably be mad, but this is one of those that I believe (having learned a little about wikipedia!) that we just printed the facts, and folks will have to reach their own conclusions about what the result of those facts were. Actually, the wording they objected to was mine, so I changed my own wording, not theirs. I have learned, and am not mad, I am honestly trying to present a dispassionate article based on very very thorough research. (I am now the proud owner of every single book ever written about Bonnie and Clyde!) I changed my own wording trying to work with them, and make the article -- as you suggested, direct quotes from sources, and more dispassionate language. I thought the end result was what they wanted, but you never know! You are probably right -- they won't like the changes either! Sheesh! PAT, YOU ARE GOOD PEOPLE, AND YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF!!!!!!!old windy bear 03:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Martel

It is interesting that, at the beginning of his career, Charles Martel had to raise on Clotaire IV as king, but by 737 there was no need to appoint a successor to Theuderic IV. Clearly, his reign completely changed the dynamics of rulership in Francia, the hallowed Merovingian line was necessary to legitimise his authority early on, but his fighting on behalf of the nation and Christendom apparently changed this, he had legitimised his own rule himself and no king was needed. His sons may have feared that they had not yet proved themselves when they appointed Childeric III in 742. Pepin's assumption of the title of king in 751 was probably an attempt to make the power won by he and his ancestors perminent for his descendants. Srnec 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I believe you are absolutely right. At the beginning of his reign, Charles depended on Kings, but by 720, he was making them. He never felt thereafter that he needed a title -- he had the power. And yes, I think you are absolutely correct that after Tours, and the Church's turnaround, with the Pope appealing to him for the protection of the Frankish Army, and the mantle of Christiandom's champion, he never felt the need for a title. Heck, lets face it, 1300 years later, people still hail him as Christiandom's savior! His son, without those accomplishments, doubtless was more comfortable with the title in addition to what power his father had left him and also was probably an attempt to make the power won by his ancestors permenant for his descendants. Did you like the more detailed section I inserted to cover the issues you raised? old windy bear 22:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I like the section. It completely covers the pre-Tours events I was referring to. I added links and removed some redundancy (the whole article needs to be vetted for consistency and redundancy, it went from a short article to long one quickly). The "After Tours" section needs more substance and a "Legacy" section should be added to the end of the entire article. Srnec 03:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Srnec Thanks, for the words on the section -- thanks for seeing it was needed!And thanks for your superb editing and writing. I will vett it for consistency and redundency both, and add a legacy section (moving some of the items like the "he who has the power," et al). Isn't Martel a fascinating figure in history? Martel really changed the face of Europe more than any single ruler since the fall of Rome, much more than his grandson, who -- and I am not deinerating Charlemagne -- used the superb army given to him by his father, which was formed under his grandfather. Also, despite it taking 18 battles to fully subdue the Saxons and bring them fully into the Frankish realm, the truth is, Charles Martel could have done it had he not been wise enough to see that keeping the nose of the Moorish Camel out of his Gaulish tent, was far more important than expanding his realm in the marches. And as you noted, he was in many ways a study in contradictions. he insisted on absolute power, yet never cared about the appearance of having it! He lived relatively humbly, maintained no court, and yet both created a true frankish empire that his descendants would forge into the countries of France and Germany, laid the groundwork for the Holy Roman Empire, and stopped the Caliphate when it was at the height of it's prowess, and able to field a far superior army in terms of arms and armour. But he had that ability to inspire men, and the vision to use them correctly. Fascinating...old windy bear 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Charles Martel

I just looked over it today; great work! (As good as anything outside a book is not that difficult, unfortunately; medieval history is sadly underrepresented on the Internet.) —Kirill Lokshin 00:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok thanks a lot Kirill! I am really trying to make the military project BETTER than a book! I had worked on Martel and Tours quite a bit as you know, and reading recent issues and edits, had to clean it up. I was delighted you liked it! The whole Mongol Empire Era revision is going well, and I will be on Rome by next week at the latest. Take care, and thank you for taking time to write me, like anyone else, it is nice when someone appreciates your work. And I actually really work on these; I not only buy my own books, but I read every book the library has, and send for those it does not. ANYWAY, THANKS AGAIN, AND TAKE CARE AND HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEK! old windy bear 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Trolling

Actually, he was editing my comments, and so I reverted them. Then he posted as this "TruPatriot" -- of course, he was winding you up all along. The people who suddenly came to post in support of you, that was him, too, trying to be cute by misspelling lots of things in the messages. Anyway, I've just blocked him for a month, and will block on sight any of his sockpuppets as well. There's no reason why anybody should have to deal with that kind of behavior. Just ignore it going forward. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Katefan0 you would think at 55 that i would be smart enough to see him doing it, but i was not. I suppose I am a basically simple person -- I just post as me, and if it is wrong, someone will correct it. This guy is particularly viscious. I believe Jerry Dorsen and Pig are the same person. Well, thanks Kate. If you look at my work in the military project, Kirill will tell you I have actually made a positive difference. I really do try! Thanks for covering my back. I am not the kind of person to create endless personnas and sock puppets --Kate, what is WRONG with these people????? THANKS AGAIN...old windy bear 02:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with assuming the best of folks. =) As for what's wrong with these people -- vandals seem to me to be some combination of bored, spoiled, awkward, mean, immature, low self-esteem, take your pick. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(scribble) Thanks Kate. You know the strange thing? It just never occurs to me to play their games. I am what I am. I have my faults, but I try, and I would never think of all this deviousness. Hey, for what it is worth, working with wikipedia would be worth it just to meet folks like you and Cycle Pat! Thanks, they had me a little beat down tonight...old windy bear 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A word of encouragement!

I think you are on your way toward becoming an administrator. Give it a little more time... But I usually get a good fealing for these things. Keep up the good work and keep reading in on wikipolicy. --CyclePat 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

b.t.w. Thank you for the words of encouragement and prayer while I was sick. I'm feeling much better! (for the last few days now!) --CyclePat 03:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Pat, you are a thoroughly decent guy, and I hope you feel better. I am really trying to do good work,and not get drawn into the craziness that the sock puppets and all that dsiplay. I am truly trying to contribute good things -- ask Kirill or Kate, (but I am sure you know, you usually are one step ahead!). Seriously, I hope you feel better. You are good people. And THANK YOU for the words of encouragement - tonight i needed them! [User:Oldwindybear|old windy bear]] 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

RE

User:216.8.14.146 You amuse me, though I regret the time Kate and good users have to waste answering people of your ilk. I laugh at you any time I log in, mostly sadly, that you waste a half decent intellect, and then more with amusement, because I saw plenty like you during the war, mostly when they were crying and begging. You would crawl like a baby if forced to actually stand on your own name. Kate is a good soul, and myself? I have nothing but contempt for a coward that hides behind anonymous im's and whines, whines, whines. You have no true credentials of your own, so you make up some, and then cry and attack - without ever using your name -- those of us who are trying to work on making things better. You amuse me, abeit sadly, in that the internet allows the true cowards of the world to hide behind anonymous im's and brag about it! You actually brag about shifting addresses and hiding as though it somehow was a distinction! Amazing. Kate nailed it on the head when she said (when I asked what makes sick puppies like you operate): "As for what's wrong with these people -- vandals seem to me to be some combination of bored, spoiled, awkward, mean, immature, low self-esteem, take your pick." I say again, if you have something to say to me, say it to me, instead of wasting wikipedia space to do it in. Use that petty little mind to actually work on articles, instead of crying how bad they are. Do something positive, if you understand how. I am now ignoring you from this moment on. As to your snearing comment, why yes, I consider working on wikipedia an honor, and the editors have earned respect, as Kate has, by hard work, and real effort. Try it sometime. old windy bear 01:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

frank hamer

Sir, if you check that article, a user you had warned if they committed one more act of vandalism, did so again, repeatedly, after your warning. It would be greatly appreciate if you dealt with them, since the rest of us are trying to write good articles. Thanks! old windy bear 03:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What user, what article, also I am not an admin, so I dont know what you want me to do as I can't block them. --Adam1213 Talk + 05:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

dam1213 205.188.116.200 is the user, and the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hamer i don't know what their problem is!old windy bear 11:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Martel

Thankyou. I vetted your newest additions for minor spelling and grammatical errors and added a small intro to the Legacy section. I was hoping to add some more quotes on his legacy from Henri Pirenne and maybe even some quotes from the primary sources of his time, but I'll do that later. The references and external links sections could be edited for consistency, but that's minor. If you are aware of any images in the public domain to add, please do. It could use some more, eh? Overall, it could use some more checking over for consistency and redundancy. This article probably deserves to be tagged as "good" by now and is rapidly on its way to featured article level. Srnec 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Srnec Thank you to you also! We have worked together well, and produced an article that is already sufficient to mark as good! I had hoped to add an additional quote from Gibbons, and another from the Arab Chronicles of the time. I will look for another image. Seriously, wasn't he an incredible man? His military achievements alone merit the title of greatness, but they were not the total of the man. He was able to resist the urge to conquer to the east, while the threat lay in the west, even if it meant less immediate reward. He cared naught for titles, as you so eloquently pointed out, yet used his power for enormous good. I am not seeking to say he was perfect - history says he tolerated fools poorly, and the burdens of defending christianity cut his life short with the stress. But if the measure of greatness is seeing a larger goal than personal enrichment, Martel earned the title "great," because history, western and eastern, says that he saw a clear danger to his children and their children, and chose to meet it, and defeat it, when the odds said he could simply not do it. And then he stole their weapons and armour, and (as you well know!) Then by his grandson's day, the basis of his army was his legendary paladins, knights, with weapons and armour taken straight from the Arabs and improved on with the addition of the buckler! Then he was the man who set the political and economic institutions in place that kept the Carolingian Empire running another century and a half! Srnec, I will try and find my quotes, but instead of just inserting them, will run them by you, and see how they fit in the total article you basically rewrote. And a fine job you did! Thanks! old windy bear 01:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles Martel must be regarded as the greatest general of Western Europe between the fall of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne, though he probably exceeded the latter in generalship. He was an administrator and the true father of the Carolingian Dynasty also, but a military commander first and foremost. He also showed commendable prescience in fighting the Moslem menace when he, as his family before and after him, would certainly have preferred to deal with the Saxons so close to his own homeland. The macrohistorical importance of Charle Martel as an actor on the world's stage is almost undeniable: he is the primary father of feudalism, the greatest general of the Dark Ages, the saviour of Christendom (and all its unique values), a military reformer of the first rate (as the father of Western heavy cavalry), the founder of his dynasty's royal pretensions, the supporter of the German missions, and the unifier of Frankland. In many ways he is more impressive than Charlemagne, but he has his faults. His despoiling of church property may be justified on utilitarian terms using hindsight (it was even beneficial for the churh in the long run), but it was undoubtedly unjust and only his heroics on behalf of the Church at Tours and Narbonne could have resuscitated any figure who committed such thefts. Fortunately for him, he was such a hero. Also, though he bequeathed the state which allowed for Pepin the Short's coronation as king and Charlemagne's as emperor, he did not complete the work and left it to them to expend the energies he expended on military matters. This is not so much a fault as a mere lacking. By necessity, he less an administrator, lawgiver, reorganiser, and statesman than many others, but more of a true general, even a strategist (so rare for that time). Have you read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson? It describes Tours and its antecedents and (macrohistorical) legacy in detail, though the author has a thesis (a good one, in my opinion) he is defending. I have read Santosuosso's work which you have referenced in this article and the Battle of Tours one. Martel is one of the "Great Men" of history. Srnec

05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

SrnecNo question I agree with you in every respect. Charles Martel must be regarded as the greatest general of Western Europe between Aetius of Rome and the rise of Charlemagne, though as you say, he probably exceeded the latter in generalship. I would go further and say he was the greatest western military commander until Henry II, (a much underrated general who also built an empire!) I respect Charlemagne, but I believe Sir Edward Creasy's theory that Charlemagne merely used the army his grandfather had built and his father had maintained. As you point out, Martel was also an administrator and the true father of the Carolingian Dynasty, but a paramount military commander first and foremost. His prescience in fighting the Muslem menace when he, as his family (and the entire Frankish people!) before and after him, would certainly have preferred to deal with the Saxons so close to his own backdoor is absolutely critical to forming the world as it is today. You are also absolutely right in that the macrohistorical importance of Charle Martel as an actor on the world's stage is absolutely undeniable: he is, as you said, the primary father of feudalism, the greatest general of the Dark Ages, the saviour of Christendom (and all its unique values), a military reformer of the first rate (as the father of Western heavy cavalry), the founder of his dynasty's royal pretensions, the supporter of the German missions, and the unifier of Frankland. You are absolutely right also in his theft of church property to finance his maintanance of a standing army to train; the Pope was on the verge of excommunicating him when the literal spector of Abd er Rahman ravaging his way to Rome, with the commisserate destruction of every unique value the Christian church has bequethed us, elevated Martel to defender of the faith. Viewed in hindsight, his life was one long struggle, where he virtually set himself a mission to protect his family, faith, and people, and in order to do so, prepared and defeated at least thrice a foe who should have won -though by Narbonne, he had sufficient heavy cavalry to allow him to use his planax in the open. You were right to point out he was more of a true general, and absolutely a strategist (the only western one in that age!). I have read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson. I also believe the author is primarily defending his own thesis, but I happen to agree with it, and it's view of Martel, Tours, et al. Santosuosso's work is interesting in that while it acknowledges Tours, it sees Narbonne as the true salvation of christianity. There, a Muslim army at least a third bigger in number than the Franks was decimated by Martel and the Frankish army, and again, it was Martel's generalship! Santosuosso though is another person who views Martel as vital to western history, for without him, Islam would have conquered and converted all the way to the steppes of Russia! Rome would have been reduced as Acre and other former Roman cities were to Muslim strongholds, with christians allowed to worship, but as second class citizens. Instead, it centers feudal Europe! Martel is without question one of the "Great Men" of history. I also believe Sir Edward Creasy's selection of Tours as one of 15 turning points in history, the 15 "great battles" is accurate, as his assessment of Martel as one who "met a superior foe in every way, yet by setting his own time and place, managed to defeat him." You are right that he left Peppin the Short and Charlemagne to finish the administrative apparatus he had begun, but even Charles enery had it's limits, and he had by necessity to devote the bulk of his to establishing that great army his grandson used so well. Gibbons points out that without taking anything from Charlemagne - who was undefeated in person in all his campaigns - Charlemagne never faced a foe who was even his equal. His grandfather took the ordinary peasant levies in 716, available only 4 months a year during the window between planting and the crops coming in, and by 732 had built the first professional western army since Rome, and only 5 years later had incorporated heavy cavalry into it, with the cavalry already the centerpiece at the time of his death! And lets face it, even with the innovations, Martel should not have won at Tours. Only absolute brilliance in his generalship saved the day. Well, you are more eloguent than I am, but we absolutely agree on Martel and Tours. old windy bear 11:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

So long as the vandal's sole contribution on Wikipedia is that one vandalism, I don't think anything disciplinary is necessary. But if it becomse repetitive, I'll do something about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. You have to practically babysit some prominent articles, eh? I greatly expanded Charlemagne a month ago and I've been watching it constantly ever since. It has a vandalism every other day. Srnec 04:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Srnec i will go look at Charlemagne's -- I admire your work. I do know what you mean about babysitting sites, I treasure the Battle of Tours, Charles Martel, the Battle of Ain Jalut, Batu and Berke Khan's, and a few others - and yes, you have to literally check them daily, which is a shame. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THOSE PEOPLE???old windy bear 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

im?

What's that? 216.8.14.51 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

216.8.14.51 If you have a problem with an article, you need to list the problem, section by section, source your dispute, reference it with accepted historial references, instead of merely slapping a tag on with no references, sources, or specific disputes.old windy bear 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What is an "im"? 216.8.14.51 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

216.8.14.51 Let the editors decide. You tagged without citing what was disputed, sourcing or referencing, more of Pig's games. old windy bear 03:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

challange an article

216.8.14.51if you challange an article, fine, but you have to list specifics, source your dispute, and reference same, instead of sock puppeting others. old windy bear 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Seing as you may have both vandalised the article... On one hand he put a tag without explaining it. And on the other hand you kept removing it (though technically I would agree with you, and I would say that you should be able to revert it.) I think if we wait half day you should be okay to remove it! So... I am not going to do anything about this today! Good luck. Unfortunately let's wait until tomorow to see if the IP has some valid explanation. Sorry. Good luck. --CyclePat 04:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Hey Pat, thanks! That is why I stopped removing it -- a revert war is useless, although he was tagging without explanation. I decided to kick it to you instead. I will wait through today, and if it is still there WITH NO EXPLANATION in the talk page tomorrow I will remove it, and note it was removed because no valid explanation was offered. It is Pig again, and he isn't writing explanations because Kate blocked him for a month, and is quite familiar with his style. ANYWAY, thanks for writing back, and for the fair decision. If he (or she, Pig may be female!), lists reasons for the tag, the reasons will be answered, and then referred to you and/or Kate for resolution. (with Pig no consensus is ever possible, he exists solely to dispute, disrupt and destroy!). If no valid explanation is offered, I will remove it, and state on the talk page I waited 36 hours to see if someone offered an explanation and no one did. Take it easy!old windy bear 11:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Tours

Hi Oldwindybear, thanks for the compliment. It was very little effort on my part, and I'm glad it made a difference. I'm no history expert, but a couple of run-on sentences aside, the article already seems very good. I hope you continue polishing it, and consider nominating it as a featured article at some point.

Cheers, Cmdrjameson 00:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Cmdrjameson

Cmdrjameson Cheers to you also, and thanks again for the really excellent edits. I have worked nearly 7 months on this particular article, and will continue to polish it - with the help of folks like yourself! (As a historian, I get lost in the woods of the history timeline and forget the trees of the run-on sentences, which is where you are INVALUABLE!) I hope it is nominated. We, the group of people, Smerc, palmdogg, myself, yourself, who have worked on this article, have tried to make it, and it's sister article, (on Charles Martel), the best on the free net. A history prof at UMd told me this article was worthy of publication, so again, the work you did was appreciated, helpful, and meaningful! THANKS AGAIN, AND TAKE CARE! old windy bear 01:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Martel

The question of the Vikings is a difficult one, the answer to which we'll never know. Needless to say, they never invaded Martel's or Charlemagne's empires. However, based on historical evidence, two general lines of thought develop. It's possible the Danish invasions were too strong for any ruler to face. Certainly they were very persistent and opportunistic. It's also possible that the European rulers of the time were too weak and preoccupied to put of the stiffest resistance. The former possibility implies that not even a Martel could have successfully opposed them. I think, however, that Europe did successfully oppose the Vikings: in the end, Scandinavia turned to Christanity and is today one of the post pacifistic parts of the globe. I suspect that not even Martel could have simultaneously warded off both Islamic and Norse ivasions, while worrying all the while about his Germanic neighbours. Perhaps Charlemagne, without the dangers present to Martel, could have. Only if Martel had been blessed with a longer life could he have invaded Jutland and put the Danes under his thumb, but ultimately, only such action, as you say, could have stopped the Vikings. Luckily, they converted to Christianity before any such action was taken and the Viking Age came to an end. Hope this skirts...er, answers your question. Srnec 01:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I appreciate the fascinating line of thought. I agree. I don't think even Martel could have warded off both the Northmen and the Muslims, similtaneously. On the other hand, you note that they never invaded the Carolingian realm while either of those two, or Pippin, (much underrated as he was not the equal of either father or son, but still pretty spectacular for those days!) ruled. Martel had the muslims, and history shows he chose to face them, a wise choice. Charlemagne, not having that menance, would have roared north, and I truly believe would have subdued Daneland. It is all just speculation though, as the Norsemen terroized Europe after the great Carolingians were gone...and you are right, in the end, Europe prevailed much as the christians did over Rome, by conversion. But I find it interesting that despite having the naval capacity to invade the realm of Martel, Pippin or Charlemagne, they chose to wait, a very prudent choice, though as you point out, in the end, the cross got them anyway! I enjoy talking to you by the way, your work is outstanding, and thanks for the pleasure and honor to work with youold windy bear 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

Hmmm, I don´t know what you mean, but let me explain it clearly: I need someone who knows Italian to check and corect the italian backronyms. I also need someone who knows Latin to translate correctly the english phrase: "The Senate and the Citizens of the People of Rome" into Latin. That phrase itself is the more acurate translation for the original meaning (the original meaning and not the phrase itself). There appears to be some doubt about that translation as you can see in the talkpage of the article SPQR. Flamarande 23:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande Heck, my wife is italian, i will find someone for you who speaks and writes fluent italian == as opposed to Latin, which I speak, and which is NOT what you wanted. Sorry, i was trying to help, but will find you what you need! old windy bear 23:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Charles Martel

Thank you for your kind words. In fact, I was taking part in a disambiguation project. In case you don't know, to do so, go to a disambiguation page (like metropolitan), click on "What links here" in the toolbox, click on an article, press 'Control' and 'F' simultaneously to find the ambiguous wikilink, and replace with the correct internal link (like I replaced metropolitan with Metropolitan bishop). I think it's fun, introduces me to new articles, and increases my edit count. Gilliamjf 09:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gilliamjf Fascinating! I did not know that, and it is certianly a useful tool. Well, you certainly are making some good edits, which is what we need. THANKS! old windy bear 11:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Great minds indeed. Sadly, there are too many new people who make silly edits because they do not understand how Wikipedia works, but, on the same hand, anything's reversible and it's impossible to lose information permanently. I also reworded some of your latest edit (additions to the Civil War 715-718 section) in order to clarify the nature of the Holy Roman Empire. Srnec 02:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Srnec As I am sure you have always noticed, I respect your edits - I believe we work well together as a team. I am a very good historian, (you are equally so!) and you are a better writer. We are the essence of what wikipedia should be - cooperation and consensus! old windy bear 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How are you?

How are you doing, Old Bear? Are you enjoying yourself? Do you need any help with anything? Take care... Johntex\^talk 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Johntex User:Kirill Hi Johntex! Hi Kirill, I am now in Rome! I am mostly working on the military project, though, as you probably know, I am in the Bonnie and Clyde dispute. Two editors are working on that though, and I have been asked to submit summaries of evidence in dispute by email rather than endless arguing on the talk page. I have done so, and the editors have been very fair. Thank you for asking about me, Kirill will tell you that I did a great deal of work on the Mongol Empire, and am now working on the early Roman Republic. I hope I have fit in, I have genuinely tried to do so, and to be a help. THANKS FOR ASKING ABOUT ME! (aside from the usual health problems, all is well!)

That is very good to hear. You hang in there and have a great time in Rome. Take care of yourself, we need your contributions. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Johntex Thanks John, have you read any of my Mongol articles, Mongol military tactics and organization, Berke Khan, et al? I am really trying. And I deeply appreciate nice folks like you asking about me. (some of the editors are aware I have dealt with chemo and other issues, some dating from problems as far back as the war - in any event, like any person, I appreciate someone caring enough to ask. And thanks for the compliment on my edits, I am really trying! old windy bear 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie & Clyde

Please keep cool. Everyone can make accusations about who dun what? Sometimes it's better to ignore such accusations. I'm glad to see you guys got your frustration off your back (I hope) however, we should discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. (even if they may have started it) One reason, I've been trying to make this debate go by email was in case it ends up becoming "personal"! (as per WP:NPA#alternatives) however an advantage of having it public is getting other peoples feedback --CyclePat 03:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

CyclePat Hi Pat! good to hear from you, and I will keep it cool. As far as i cam concerned, the issues have finally been winnowed down to two:

• the role of bonnie parker in the barrow gang crimes, including her admitted lack of warrants charging her with anything resembling a capital crime'
• the ambush, and it's horrific aftermath;

How you and Kate handle this is fine with me. I remain somewhat startled at how Pig shifts identtities so quickly = he is Jerry Dorsen one day, SchlimmPickens the next, none of them true. Amamzing! BUT, you and Kate deserve credit for getting the revision started! Hurray! good job, and you should pat yourself on the back, no pun intended, for being able to stay cool through Pig's various aliases and insults. It is the finish time: we are rewriting, or you are, and I am advising. Proud of you both! Take care, and thanks for writing me! You are a thoroughly good guy. My grandkids have kept me going today! old windy bear 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Two Responses from Srnec

In response to your invitation, I can only say that I am no expert on the early Roman Republic, but I'd be happy to copyedit (grammar, spelling, wording, structure, wikifying, etc) and I could perhaps do some research at my university library if it would be useful. I could certainly help more in the realm of late Roman and medieval military matters.

In response to you inquiry, let me explain why I suggested keeping "Catholic" but did not rv your edit. Yes, the schism between East and West had not yet occurred in 732, but the churches were vastly different in most respects. Also, Catholic is often used in contrast to Arian and other heresies in early medieval history, but these heresies were inconsequential or extinct by the time Martel. So, in short, you're right. I only thought that Christian was rather wide in its implications, for Eastern Europe was not threatened by the Moslems of Spain, but rather by those of Asia Minor. But, the implications of Catholic are probably too narrow. "Western Europe" would be a religiously-neutral, but nonetheless accurate, term, but "Christian" is fine and I won't change it. Srnec 04:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Srnec In pondering this, I think you are right, and it should be western christianity, or western europe. I do think the imposition of a muslim rule over Rome would have had profound implications for all of christianity, but you are right taht it would not have meant the end of the Orthadox Church. I am delighted you will work with me on the Roman project, editing is my great weakness, as you know! Plus, especially in the medieval arena, your knowledge is truly vast. SO THANKS! I am changing the term in the article to reflect "western christianity" which I think you are right is more correct historically. old windy bear 11:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pig

Not a problem. Sorry for the revert. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ESkogThanks for writing, but no biggie! i felt I owed you an explanation of why I deleted the personal attacks. I was told not to respond to them, just delete them. (and any responses I had made!) but your courtesy in writing is GREATLY APPRECIATED - we could use a little more of that around here, ouch! THANKS! old windy bear 03:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: the Mongols

Please, take your time and rest well; your health is far more important that mere Wikipedia work. Your contributions have been excellent so far, and I look forward to seeing what you can do on the Roman stuff. (We've just recently started a Classical warfare task force within the project; maybe by the time you get back it'll be in a position to help with some of the work.)

Wishing you a speedy recovery —Kirill Lokshin 04:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

hin Thanks Kirill, I would be delighted to work on the classicial warfare project when I return, and thanks more for the kind wishes. You are truly a nice person, and a pleasure to work with and for...old windy bear 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde and Saltypig

Thanks for the heads up! I just blocked the sock indefinitely. Also think I'm going to remove his comments from the talk page. It's uncalled for and he's a blocked user anyway. Thanks again. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it in terms of removing his comments from the talk page. Cool. I'm hoping that we won't have to fully protect the talk page but we might have to. Not sure if you've figured this out, but what he did was create a bunch of user accounts on the 9th and then waited until the 4 day semi protection waiting period had passed and then posted to B&C. *sigh* --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(cat scratches) No, I had not figured out how he did it - just that he created yet another sock and went at it again. I am at a loss as to why he hates me so badly. I truly never did anything except argue with him, and I did point out that if you pretend to be 1,000 other people, folks find it hard to take you seriously. (and of course no one does take him seriously except as a huge waste of time!) Oh well, thanks for the help! No one likes to be mocked for their disabilities, for instance, and he is quite good at that. I find his comments puzzling, on the one hand, he claims I "stole" his article on Bonnie and Clyde, and then immediately after, blames me for rewriting it, and ruining it! Yet he cannot see that doing both is impossible, and actually, I did neither. I, and a group of other people, rewrote the article to reflect the best history available, as to the limited role Bonnie really had. (the fact no jurisdiction had a single warrant on her for a capital offense!) ANYWAY, have a nice day, and thanks! old windy bear 12:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I've never understood it either and I've been doing this for 16 months now. Take a look at History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar. Katefan and I (along with others) battled this user named Gibraltarian for THREE months. He was blocked by an admin...had an arbcom case against him...and yet he just kept at it, day after day. Yeah I don't get it either. Anyway, if you need further help, let me know. I work 3rd shift, so I'm usually active overnight. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty Hey buddy! I just went and looked at History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar. Amazing! I don't suppose I should be surprised, but I am. People get so nasty over the most foolish things. The only good thing the War did for me was leave me determined not to fight ever again over foolishness... Thanks for the offer on help, you are a nice person, as Kate is, a rarity in today's world full of angry people! Take care! old windy bear 11:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(cat scratches) Hey Buddy! I have called for your help in the Bonnie and Clyde and Frank Hamer dispute. A user named My2cents is making wholesale deletions without seeking consensus, including deletions in the Frank Hamer article I wrote, and which Katefan0 rewrote at considerable effort. he simply deletes sections wholesale, with no historial explanatino, no dispute of facts - he just doesn't like the information, so removes it. I have asked for your help, and other editors, to examine the issues in dispute, and decide whether this user shoudl have the unilateral right to simply delete information wholesale without explanation or factual basis for same. Thanks! I smell Pig's involvement with this somewhere. old windy bear 14:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if ever you need any help. :-) AnnH ♫ 18:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

AnnH Thank you. It is puzzling to me how anyone could mock a vet in a wheelchair, but Pig does, in his vendetta because I disagree with him on Bonnie and Clyde. And the sad thing is, he really has no interest in making this a better enclyclopedia - i am a fanatic believer! - but interest in making as cruel a statement as possible. It doesn't bother me in a personal sense, but it saddens me that such a bright mind is so ill. THANKS for your kindness! old windy bear 19:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like

Musical linguist beat me to it. :) so the sock is blocked. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Projects

I think that Rome may be the area that needs the most work at this point. Feel free to follow your own inclinations as to what should be worked on, and in what order. You might also want to drop by the Classical warfare task force and/or speak directly with Vedexent, who has been trying to do some work in that field; he may have some better ideas about what areas need particular attention.

If you have other things you'd like to work on instead, of course, you shouldn't feel obligated to listen to me in the least ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: projects

Hello! Welcome aboard - if aboard is where you really want to be ;) We can use all the help we can get, and someone with a degree in history is most welcome. If you want, feel free to put your name down in the member list of the military history wikiproject and the classical warfare task force :)

We don't really seem to have any "current projects" for the CWTF yet - we only have just over 10 members - but we can probably start to do that now. I'm thinking that the military history of Rome and the military history of Greece are probably good places to start for us. For minor "grunt work", there are lots of articles listed on the CWTF page that don't have "battle boxes" yet. I don't know - the CWTF is new and unformed enough that we're still trying to get our bearings :)

Just out of curiousity, where does your area of specilization in histroy lie?

Once again, welcome aboard :) - Vedexent 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent My friend, honestly, I consider it a great honor to be allowed to work on wikepedia. I am a true believer in Jimbo's vision of this as the single greatest repository of knowledge ever created.

• My area of specialization is medieval europe, but I am fairly well versed in the Roman Era, by that I literally mean from the early republic, to the Empire, to the Eastern Empire, the Carolingian's, (I consider Charlemagne to be the legitimate "heir" to the vanished western empire, and the de facto and de jure father of the Holy Roman Empire - though one could argue the basic Carolingian empire was created by Martel and polished by his son and especially Grandson). . Now Voltaire may have been right: it certainly was not Holy, it was not classically Roman, and not an empire in the purest sense. But as my friend Smec says, (we worked a great deal together on the Battle of Tours, and Charles Martel - both of us are great Charles Martel fans!) the Holy Roman Empire constitued an enormous political power for a time, especially under the Saxon and Salian dynasties and, to a lesser, extent, the Hohenstaufen.
• Please forgive my stupidity, but I lack the link to the member list of the military history wikiproject and the classical warfare task force - if you send it, i would be honored to be a member. I would like to begin with the real turning points of Roman Republican military history - the Punic Wars. (if that is okay with you!) I am recovering from some heart woes, so my work will not be as swift as normal, but I will do my best. If you want to see good examples of my work, as I said, Smec and I basically wrote the Battle of Tours, and Charles Martel articles, and I wrote most of the article on Mongol Military Tactics and Organization.

Just let me know what to do, and thanks for welcoming me! I am honored! If Smec is not a member, I urge you to recruit him, he is brilliant and a great writer! I truly do believe in this project, and want to help...old windy bear 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to give you the links. They are the Classical warfare task force of the Military history WikiProject. I think the Punic wars are an excellent place to start if you want. Right now we're trying to figure out if the Battle of Carthage was in 149 or 148 ;) Glad to see someone really enthusiastic about the projects :) I look forward to working with you :) - Vedexent 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent Thank you again, and I look very forward to working with you. I am going to register now. old windy bear 04:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Hi, Oldwindybear. I've semi-protected your talk page because of particularly nasty messages. That means that anonymous users won't be able to post there, and neither will very-recently-registered users. I'd feel happier leaving it semi-ptortected for a while, but since it's your talk page, I thought I should let yo know, so if you'd prefer me to unprotect again, please say so. Regards, AnnH ♫ 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your thoughtfulness and kindness

User:Musical Linguist I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kindness in semi protecting my talk page. I am at a loss why Pig would hate me so - he has taken considerable joy in the past mocking wheelchair/disabled, and in making threats, and in truly viscious cursing and ranting. Now, after the war, and all that has happened in my life, I do not fear this foolish little man, (oh, but he must yearn so for attention and his envy is sad!) but my grandchildren read my user page, (and thus talk page!) and are very proud of old Grandpa. I would be saddened enormously if they read something like what you were referring to, and I think you were both thoughtful, and enormously kind in acting to shield the page. God Bless...(by the way, my family is of Irish extraction, with an american indian of mixed blood tossed in!) I want to see Fair Dublin City, as Molly Malone says, before i die! Thanks again, you are just a good human being...~~

Pepin the Short

It is hard to tell what I did in the history of the article, but I read the whole thing for grammar and other technical aspects. I also added a few small parts (death of Grifo, Donation of Pepin) and reworded some sentences. Most significantly, I believe, are the phrases I removed and the reasons. I also explained and justified them on the talk page, but I thought I'd just past that here for you, as well.

I removed the reference to the popes in danger from the Moslems. I believe that threat is still in the future for the mid eight century papacy. The Lombards were the prime threat.

I removed the sentence "During his reign, Pippin's conquests gave him more power than anyone since the days of King Clovis." I believe that his power, as with that of almost every king before him (excepting the rois fainéants), far exceeded Clovis'. I think it would be better to say that his position in the Carolingian dynasty is as that of Clovis in the Merovingian, but I haven't added that yet.

Finally, I removed some phrases in the Legacy section which I believed tilted towards POV. That is, his greatness relative his father and son is subjective and it is best to merely state that the general perception (both scholarly and more popularly) of hims is that of a lesser man between two greaters.

All said and done, good edits. I had been hoping to expand that article, myself, but its always nice to see that you're not on your own in these projects, isn't it? It could use more expansion, but I'll have to look up information on him first. Srnec 05:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Srnec My friend, it is always nice to know you are not out there on your own - and until you came along, I thought I was! I greatly appreciate your help, because your writing is superior to mine, and I like to think we make a good team, each of us contributing facts, and you putting the polish on the diamond, so to speak! In this case, I also felt Pippin's article was woefully inadequate, and this is just the beginning. I have a book on the great Carolingians coming in, which will give us some really valuable information on him, especially - I think we have most of the pertinent information on his father and son. Take care, and thanks again! old windy bear 03:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Improving Charles Martel

I just looked at that article for the first time in a while. I think its getting kind of long and a little redundant. It needs to be completely reread and edited to streamline it and remove redundancy (stuff mentioned more than once or explained in more detail at another article). I'll do some editting, but I though I bring this to your attention, you should look at it and see if there's anything that could be removed without creating a deficiency or is there anything that could be rewritten in a simpler, shorter style. I think the article's good up until the "Eve of Tours." The Battle of Tours has its own good article and perhaps some of the stuff from that section and the "Legacy" (which is long) could be moved there. Thanks. Srnec 00:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I agree completely. Why don't I do a first draft rewrite tomorrow morning, and if you are not super busy about noon, check in and take a look - you will find much of it rewritten, and redundencies removed. I do love that article, as you know, and appreciate your giving me first shot at a rewrite - then you, who are a better writer, can polish up. Thanks! I will get to work on it tonight, and have it posted by noon on sunday. old windy bear 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I believe you will be pleased with the deletions of redundent wording, and rewording of the article. You can see in the history what was eliminated, and reworded, and I believe it tightened and improved the article. I do think it important to mention that essentially he fashioned the form of government which would reign over all of Europe for the next 700 years with his fashioning of fiefdoms loyal to the crown, though he - as you so aptly pointed out - dispensed with a crown de jure and functioned as a crown de facto at life's end. I read recently a fascinating article claiming he could have taken Narbonne by siege had he chosen to tie up his army and resources - but he felt he had to concentrate on organization and administration of the Frankish realm he would be handing to his heirs. He was content to smash their armies, and leave them isolated behind walls which would ultimately quietly fall to Pippin in the coming years. Also, it is vital to note his really incredible feat of rearming his forces from infantry to a mix of heavy cavalry and year-round professional infantry, plus the levies, in 5 short years! He was the father of European knighthood, among other things. Anyway, I am sure you can tighten it further, but I did eliminate much redundancy, move some things, and tighten the wording.old windy bear 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Looked good, though it could probably use some more. I haven't got the time though: exams. Srnec 05:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i am in school too, and went back to work part time after a year off with chemo, and the disabilities make that hard enough anyway! I will do additional work as I have time. Thanks for your help. You simply are a better writer; I believe my research skills are sound enough, but you are just a better writer. Thanks for hte help, and good luck with exams - I have two classes this time also. 55 and still in school! Ha! old windy bear 17:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tours

Don't get me wrong man, I'm not trying to undermine your efforts. All I'm asking is if the article is heavily sourced then why not using inline citation. About the POV, I'm not asking for favourable Muslim view (the issues of Islamic conquest of Persia and subsequent destructions is very much alive in Iran and although I do not endorse some of its "fictional" parts but its still is so tragic) just a bit more balance POV. نوروزتان پيروز Amir85 06:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir85 Amir, again, Peace and the Blessings of God Be Upon You. I am well aware of the horrors that took place under Umar when the faithful conquered Persia - the illusion that Persia lept willingly into the arms of the Caliphs is just that, as you know better than I! I adhere to Norwich's theory that both the Persian Sassanid and Greek Bzyantine Empire essentially beat each other into exhaustion, and were ripe pluckings for the savage desert tribesmen who came swarming out of Syrian plains after Umar assumed the Caliphate. Both empires were literally ripped apart, and the attrocities well known to those who wish to find the truth. As to this article, I have already made a few changes - if you check the so called "contempary analysis" I added "Whether this is a "good" or "bad" result is a matter of perspective. Sir Authur Clarke, though no historian, believed had Islam triumphed at Tours, centuries of secular strife would have been avoided, and the East and West unified. William Watson believes it would have been a disaster, destroying what would become western civilization after Renaissance." The sources for that are Sir Authur Clarke's computer simulations on what would have happened if the Islamic forces had prevailed at Tours, and for Watson, "The Battle of Tours-Poitiers Revisited", Providence: Studies in Western Civilization, 2 (1993). Nor will that be the last. I will go through, and carefully recheck everything - but please believe me, all the facts are legitimately heavily sourced - for instance, the records on the invasions of 736-737 are mostly from the Arab Chronicles. Why not cite each source at each line? Because the article would be 10 pages long, it is written as an encyclopedia article, where if a fact is in dispute, we discuss it here, bring the sources, and reach consensus. I personally do read Arabic, so I have read the Arab Chronicles in their original form. As for this Battle, all parties and faiths pretty much agree that it was a crucial turning point because had Emir Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi Abd al Rahman, a pious man, good ruler of al-Andalus, and good general, defeated Charles Martel, there was no christian power to stop him from going on to Rome, and speading Islam by force of arms. Martel's stand at Tours is one of the great turning points of history - again as you know, the era of Islamic expansion was closing, as the Umayyad Dynasty would soon be destroyed (except for the two princes who escaped to al-Andalus, but that is another tale!) at the Battle of the Zab, and the period of Islamic unity would be at an end. I promise to faithfully reread this, and make certain there is no POV. Please believe I have NO desire to allow such! For instance, the other day someone changed the article to say Martel received that name for smashing "Arabs." I corrected that at once. As you know, his army was drawn from all parts of the Caliphate, but primarily from Northern Africa, Berbers, Arabs, some Persians, and a signficant number of Greeks, oddly enough. But I will recheck, and again, if you have any specific fact you want a source from which it was drawn, just ask, either here, or email me, and I will send you the exact book and other sourcing. I lived three summers in Cairo, traveled to Persia, and have truly tried to present this article fairly, from all the viewpoints. (as did the Muslim and Christian historians who helped write it!) old windy bear 11:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Podkayne of Mars ending

• Hi! I'm dropping messages to a few people who've worked on the Podkayne article about the ending. I just finished re-reading Podkayne of Mars (Berkeley Medallion Edition, 1/1970, 7th printing). In this ending Poddy is hurt, but will recover, and Uncle Tom lectures Dad. The Wikipedia article says "Podkayne is injured by the bomb, but will recover, and the moral of the story, as spoken by Uncle Tom, is omitted entirely." Do you know if there are three different endings? I'm wondering if this could be someone's memory playing tricks on them, or perhaps the 1995 version with both ending omitted UT's lecture in one of the endings to avoid repeating it. I don't suppose you have a first edition copy of this book? DejahThoris 07:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

DejahThoris I have an edition with the original ending, where Podkayne dies, with a far more shattering lecture from Uncle Tom, and it is simply no comparison in the devastating affect the ending with her death has. There are only two endings: one she dies, one she does not. Hope this helps! If you have never read the ending with her dying, I would be willing to copy it, and mail it to you, if you sent me an address. old windy bear 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire

Hi there. Sorry to bother just want to ask whether you have any sources dealing with Sassanids, their army and battles ? Best wishes. Amir85 18:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir85 Peace and the Blessings of God to you my Brother, yes, I have several books that have information on the Sassanids, History of the Later Roman Empire by Bury, which discusses extensively the conflict between the Byzantine Greeks and the Sassanids, which weakened both powers to the point that the Arabs destroyed both, pretty much; The Battles that Changed History, which talks extensively about the Sassanid warrior class, and their army; The Political Systems of Empires, which also talks extensively about the Sassanids, and the way they governed their empire, and of course, the great Byzantine triology by Norwich, which also goes extensively into the Sassanids, because from 315ad to the conquest of Persia by Umar after Abu Bakr's death, the Sassanids were the bane of the Eastern Roman Empire, so he delves considerably into their empire and army. Essentials of Medievial History si another book I have with considerable information on the Sassanids. You know of course I am sure far better than I, that they had a very powerful and disciplined warrior class that had fought Imperial Rome successfully from the time of Caesar! The tragedy of the destruction and loss of Sassanid culture is horrific, and not much spoken about in the way things are presented today, as though the Islamic conquest was by choice. Are you interested in any of these books? I could send you one if you need it - just send it back when you are done, or I can look up anything you need. old windy bear 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I need some more information about Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste and their influence on European medieval knights, I did collect some information but its not enough for sure. If you could help me out here. All the best. Amir85 18:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir85 I will begin to put together the information at once. This much we can say definitively - the Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste were the primary influence in creating the Muslim Heavy Cavalry, who are described as the world's first knights, (abeit incorrectly, since the Persian warrior caste were the true first Knight!)and who Charles Martel used as models to create the first western "Knights," heavily amoured horsemen (remember the west did not have stirrups until after Tours!) Martel literally became the father of western Knights by mimicing Islamic heavy cavalry, who had themselves taken the armour, weapons, and many tactics of the Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste- and there is considerable speculation that much of the western Knights so called "Code of Honor" was in effect at least a full century before in similiar form in the Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste also. If someone is trying to tell you that the west invented Knights, the article at Tours makes clear that Martel literally stole the stirrups and saddles off the dead horses at tours, and the armour off the dead cavalry! There is also an interesting correlation between the Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste and the later European feudal system, which mimiced the way the Sassanids granted their heavy cavalry the status of minor nobility, and mobilized them in the precise manner the Europeans did later -- Martel's genius primarily lay in taking what other people had, and adapting his relatively barbarian franks to use it, and in being where he was least expected to be. For instance, as you know, he seized church assets to pay year round soldiers, to train and use the ancient Greek phalanx as the only means his infantry had to counter the Islamic Cavalry. After Tours, it only took him five years, using literally booty from the dead for a start, to create western heavy cavalry. But the base system for all later "Knights" began in the Sassanid Empire. Norwich goes into their devastating destruction of classic Roman legion formations, and the forcing of the Greeks to adopt cavalry. Well, as I said, I will gather some stuff up, source it all, and email it to you.old windy bear 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear respected Veteran, I also need your precious help about Sassanid economy if you have any. I wish you luck ! Amir85 20:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir85 Dear Brother, Sassanid economy was basically agarian, in that sense, it was much like the Roman Empire, (the original Roman Empire), which measured most of it's wealth in agriculture. It tended also to base much of it's economy on agriculture because of the lands the Asawaran (Azatan) knighty caste had from the throne, which they had to pay a portion of the produce to. However the Sassanids had a crucial advantage Rome did not, (and I will gather information on this also!) in that during much of their periods of real glory, they controlled much of the invaluable trade routes in the middle east. As you know, both Byzantines and Sassanids used Arab tribes for fighting forces and caravan guards in the crucial middle east trade routes. The Silk Road came through Byzantium, but it also curled north to some extent, when the Sassanids were able to wrest control from the Byzantines. The Sassanids also sat right square in the middle of the wild Turkic tribes and Afghans to the North, and what luxuries they could afford, when they could not take them, they had to trade - with the Sassanids! The Bzyantines were right in front of them, and both vied for control of the trade routes. While Persia was unquestionably fertile enough to provide sufficient food stuffs for sale as well as sustenance, their periods of greatest power came with the added income from controlling the trade routes from west to east. At it's height, the Sassanid Empire controlled much of the world's trade! Commerce came overland from China, and India, and those routes were the key to incredible wealth and power - which is bascially why the Sassanids and Byzantines essentially beat each other into exhaustion over control of the fertile cresant and the trade routes. I have to add, again, as you know better than I that the Islamic conquest would not have happened if the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had not literally decimated the Sassanid military just a few years before the Arabs would burst onto the world scene, and make Persia one of their first conquests. (Ironically, Heraclius lived long enough to see virtually all the territory he had recovered from the Sassanids and Avars lost to the Arabs!) I will gather more information on the Sassanid economy for you also.old windy bear 21:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. You could directly edit the aforementioned subjects in their respected page instead of emailing them to me. Its a matter of preference, whichever you are the most comfortable with. Amir85 06:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Amir85 Brother, I will leave that up to you, as a matter of respect. These were "your" articles, and while I am honored to help gather information, if you would like to shift through it, and post what you feel is best in the article, that is fine with me. I should have the information fully gathered, sourced, and ready for transmission to you by this coming friday. old windy bear 11:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi man, sorry to bother you again. My email address is the one that I've registered in WP so you can mail me through email option in my user page. Cheers. Amir85 07:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

Sorry for forgetting to reply; I think the reason why the links won't work is because brackets ([ ]) are required for the link to work (example: [3]). I believe I have added the WP:FOOTNOTEs for all of the quotes- please add a note on my talk page if I have forgotten any. (by the way, my standards for MASSIVELY sourced are somewhat closer to my FA History of New Jersey :-). Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ You have the article wonderfully linked - I have the sources, literally, as many as that article, but don't have them linked. Your help is GREATLY APPRECIATED. I will work on adding specific links probably this weekend. No one has challanged the facts which are presented cited, simply because virtually all of them are online - the warrants for instance, are kept in the FBI data base, and they covered ALL warrants in existance at that time! But your article is what I strive for, linking EVERYTHING so that there are no questions, period. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE HELP, AND THE DIRECTION. old windy bear 20:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a short note

Please don't invoke my name on the peer review page for Bonnie and Clyde. I'm trying not to be involved in all of that. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty Sorry buddy, and i hope you will accept my apology, I will go and remove it now. I only did it because I trust your judgement and fairness, but I certainly understand your not wanting to be involved, and apologize. I hope you won't be angry with me, I happen to respect you a great deal for your fairness, and good work here. old windy bear 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you (re)move the Dutch History template on the Frankish Empire article?

I would like an explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frankish_Empire&diff=51842953&oldid=51842340 Sander 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sander I left a very detailed one on your talk page - it was strictly to improve the appearance of the article. It was not in any way meant to diminish the importance of, or history of, the Netherlands. But as was, the article had a 7" gap with no writing, so I moved that section to eliminate that. It is in the article, under Dutch History, very readable, very visable, and no insult or slight was intended, it was strictly to improve an awful looking article, and that section was the longest, causing the most open space. If you feel this is wrong, I will post it as a proposed revision, with explanation, on the talk page, and we can seek consensus, but truly, it diminishs the Netherlands and their importance IN NO WAY. old windy bear 16:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, that's very assuring.I didn't want to sound agressive or anything, it's just like it happened before that people removed the Dutch template because they thought it wasn't important enough.

Sander 17:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sander The Dutch Template is EXTREMELY important, and I added a note in that section that says: "The history of the Netherlands, a vital part of the empire, was moved here solely due to it's size, and not to diminish it's importance in any way." You did not sound aggressive at all, merely asking a very legitimate question: was the move to diminish the very important role of the Netherlands, and to minimize their history, and the answer I hope shows you that was NEVER the case, but to make sure everyone understood, I added the caveat to the secton. Take care!old windy bear 17:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mongol question

We've received a request for a peer review of the "Mongol invasion of Central Asia" article, and I was wondering if you might be able to comment; you're pretty much the only person I know of with enough background regarding the Mongols to actually be able to evaluate the details, rather than just commenting on writing style. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

hin Kirill, I am sorry I have been so out of touch. I returned to work after a year off after chemo, and heart trouble, and it slowed me considerably. I have lately concentrated on defending my Carolingian articles, and Bonnie and Clyde, but I would be delighted to help with peer review on the Mongols - I wrote a Master's paper on them, actually, and do have some knowledge. (plus actually visiting Mongolia, which was a strange trip!) What do you want me to do, and how is the appropriate manner to do it? Forgive me, but I want to do this right, with source citing on the review, et al. Please direct me, and I will be honored to help. old windy bear 19:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see you back! :-)

As far as the peer review: you can make any sort of comments and suggestions (with specific citations if you feel they would be helpful) right on the peer review page; I can create a section for you to use if that would be easier. (You can, of course, make changes to the article itself as well; but I don't want you to feel obligated to work on it if you have other things to do.) Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

>]]inNo, no, after examining the article - which has a number of mistakes and inaccuracies -- I would like to do a rewrite, source it, and list that on the peer review for your evaluation. Actually, a section for me to post it would be fine. I can have it done by this coming friday. I have a significant collection of works on the mongol era, their empire, the invasions, (as you know, I rewrote most of those articles, but missed this one!), and I will start tonight. For instance, the problems with Jochi started long before the seige that the current article cites; Jochi's parentage had always been an issue, since the mother of the Khan's four sons had been abducted and raped, and Jochi was born around nine months after her rescue, his parentage was always in question. The Khan chose to acknowledge him due to his love for his wife, but there were ALWAYS problems, which ultimately brought down the empire. That branch fighting with the others, and that is just one problem. I will rewrite the whole article, source it heavily, and post it wherever you tell me, for review, if that is acceptable, and thanks, it is nice to be back and an honor to be working for you again! old windy bear 20:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, great! I've created a section on the peer review page (linked above) where you can make comments as needed. Thanks again for taking a look at this! Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok I am just going to rewrite it, and put it in the section for review, with sourcing listed, so we can discuss what was wrong, and why it was corrected - for instance, while some of the issues are true on conflict in the Muslim world, they are not altogether true, as you probably know. The Shah had other problems with the Caliph, not the least of which was that he refused to pay the traditional obligatory homage to the authority of the Caliph, which was of course merely honorary by that time - still, the article as it stands sounds like the Caliph did not wish to name him Sultan - that was never the problem. The problem was that the Caliph expected him to come to Bagdad, (or even send appropriate representatives with presents - bribes, frankly) like any Sultan, and acknowledge his spiritual leadership. Even the great Alp Arslan, a far greater conquerer and man, did the obligatory homage. Anyway, I am on this for you, and it is a pleasure, thank you for asking me.(I can see why people are having problems with this article in toto) old windy bear 21:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lok I have begun the rewrite, section by section, sourcing as I go along. I first inserted the standard three paragraph opening, then went to work on the first section. If you have a chance, look at the first five paragraphs, all heavily sourced, and hopefully let me know this is the direction you are hoping for, a more historically accurate, sourced, nuanced, article. I have also worked elsewhere in the article, making it more historically accurate, and beginning what will be heavy sourcing. See the conclusion also, and please let me know if this is what you think improves the article.old windy bear 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Khwarezmid Empire

Kirill LokKirill, I have begun the rewrite of the article on the Khwarezmid Empire. Would you please check the new introduction, which has three paragraphs instead of one, and see if this is a direction you like? I am now into the article itself, going paragraph by paragraph, rewriting for historical accuracy, better nuancing, and sourcing heavily, which was totally missing. I have also worked in the introduction obviously, but also in the article, making it more historically accurate, and beginning what will be heavy sourcing. See the conclusion also, and please let me know if this is what you think improves the articleThanks! old windy bear 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Sock Puppet Notice

After consulting with an administrator I trust completely, I am removing the sock puppet notice until the accuser agrees to Check/User on the account and edits, which will clearly prove I did not use a sock puppet. This was a vicious and unfounded personal attack, clearly in retaliation for daring to oppose one of our most massively POV'd and opinionated users. I have placed absolute evidence I have no sock puppets, on the appropriate page, and since he won't request check/user, which i have, and has no "evidence" as somone else noted, I am removing the accusation. old windy bear 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

====Refutation of Charge and Request for Investigation - I am not User:Stillstudying===

I ask for Check/User at once to refute this latest personal attack by Mytwocents - such check, easily done, shows I could not possibly have made the edits in question, I don't konw the person, or where they are logging in from, but I know I am at work with no access to wikipedia. PERIOD, AND CHECK/USER WILL CONFIRM THIS.

After being "accused" of being User:Stillstudying by Mytwocents I did put the humorous note on the talk page of User:Stillstudying - and clearly intended it to be a message from myself, not a message from the user, or I would have put it on the user page. I frequently - as anyone who knows me and knows my work = leave notes on talk pages. Further, I am not this person, all edits to the Bonnie and Clyde talk page were made from a internet provider I have no access to, and this can be easily proven. While we are here, I would like to equally complain that this user, Mytwocents has used every means possible, and I do mean every means possible, to obtain a false consensus on POV changes, including Shouting, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, slandering, threats - he did all the above in lying about me. Let us be clear on that - Mytwocents called me names on an administrator's talk page - I never treated hime so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Woohookitty where he called me an "ape-over-asshole nut." Slander? Calling names? Look at his talk page - look at the history of people well and regularly making similiar complaints. I simply refused to back down from him. I ask this be formally investigated. None of the edits made by User:Stillstudying were made from any computer I have access to. Period, and I can prove this. Further, a study of the language shows definite differences - I never said anything in a couple of sentences in my life. There are numermous other differences. I then request formal discipline against Mytwocents for his harassment and false accusations against a member who was just asked - myself - to participate in a peer review rewrite (check with Kirill) in the military project because I am well thought of.

I deeply resent this charge, which is false, which has NO evidence that I made any edits but says I left a message (humerous, after this accuser accused me of being the person) on that person's talk page. The internet addresses will prove it cannot possibly be me, and is not, who made the edits, and I demand that wikipedia discipline Mytwocents for his repeated slanders, false accusations, and threats against me I intend to remove this false accusation in seven days, as soon as the internet addresses are checked, and it confirms that once again,Mytwocents has resorted to name calling and slanders to attempt to bulldoze his way to a POV on an article, and those who resist that, and his bullying, are mercilessly attacked personally.old windy bear 11:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing notices from talk page

Hello, Oldwindybear. With regard to your question at my talk page, if something is within policy, you don't need an administrator's permission to do it, and if it's contrary to policy, an admin can't give permission. There is no clear policy here but there is a proposed policy, which you can see at Wikipedia:Removing warnings. The existence of the templage {{Wr0}} shows that there are people who consider it to be poor form to remove messages from one's talk page. It's okay to remove trolling and harassment; it's not okay to remove genuine warnings. Of course, people can disagree as to whether a message is a genuine warning or harassment. I personally have no objection if you remove the sockpuppet notice. Hope this is sorted out. All the best. AnnH ♫ 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

AnnH Thanks, I will remove it, because he has not requested Check/User, which he knows perfectly well will show I never created the account, or made the edits. As you so eloguently pointed out, if putting a talk page message on makes you a sock puppet, you would be one, lol. By the way, did you notice my awe that you are "Cathoilic" - I never knew there was such a faith. I find it sad, but wryly amusing that when people attack you, or myself, they inevitably do so in a really stupid manner. Perhaps there is a moral there...Thanks again...old windy bear 14:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet charge

Old windy bear I requested a checkuser on the suspected sockpuppet page. I think this would be the best way to clear this up. I lined out the comment I made about your response to my B&C edit days ago. If you saw that as a personal attack, then I apologise.

I think your view of me is distorted. I would ask that you sit back and take a look at the past discussions we have had, and say if you really think my motivation, through it all, has been to personally attack you. Perhaps you could have someone you trust, to review things and give you their take.

Mytwocents 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Mytwocents I regret things have taken this turn. You will find, to your sad surprise, once the check/use is done, that I am not, and could not possibly be, stillstudying. I have been active in wikipedia - nominated (though not elected, I was fourth in the three final candidates) for military group - and honorably so, for at least a year. Only one other user has ever attacked me as personally and mercilessly as you have. He is now permanently banned - though I did not request it, others did. You know, you are far too intelligent, that I pride myself fiercely on my work, and simply would not allow anyone else's name to be attached to it - indeed, when my brother was staying with me, and using my computer, to edit this site, I stopped him, just because someone could conceivably think a sock puppet was involved.

In your case, I have had two friends, who use this site, examine your attacks on me, and my kindness in originally asking that the mediation be dropped. You very foolishly thought because I posted a note on a talk page - something I have done approximately 200-300 times the past year, occasionally, on dozens of occasions forgetting to make the old windy bear mark that donates my nom de plume, but always knowing history instantly reveals the writer - that you could use this to further harass me. Frankly, I did it out of sarcasm because of your latest slander. My two friends recommended that I ask, for the first time ever, that a user be banned. I think they are right. Your attacks on me are continuing and very personal. You called me names on a very respected administrator's talk page. The only thing I ever said about you was I honestly feel, as a trained historian, that your goal is not NPOV. I believe you seek POV, whether you are able to see it or not. You refuse to accept truth as the ultimate goal here - this was clear when you told me you opposed Ted Hinton's stunning posthumous revelation that Frank Hamer kidnapped a man, and sold a pardon for a murderer of two young Texas highway patrolmen to keep from being arrested. You said "you didn't believe it so it shouldn't be on there." You never understood that it does not matter what you believe, or I believe, it is what the facts, the history says, that goes in an encyclopedia. You are unable to see that I am not pro anybody. I am a historian, who is pro truth, wherever that takes me.

I have asked for mediation, and once the check/use is complete, and I am cleared, that you be banned for the language - "ass-over-nuts what was it?" I am also asking you be banned for editing talk pages, endles personal attacks, and a knowingly false accusation on a sock puppet. You cite wikipedia policy, it is now clear you need to be compelled to show civility, and not make false allegations.

If you wish, before the check/use shows you to be fully and completely wrong, to withdraw the complaint - I note the check/use is going to be done in any event, since Ihave formally requeseted it on the mediation page, and it would be done as a matter of course - but if you acknowledge that you are wrong, and that the accusation was made in anger, and unfounded, before it is inevitably proven so, I will withdraw my mediation request that you be banned. You and I both know what the check/use will find. I am fiercely proud of my work, and make damn sure my name is attached. You and I both know I will be cleared. If you are a big enough person to apologize AND FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE I WILL BE CLEARED for this revolting attack, I will step forward and accept, and let the process formally clear me, and that is that. I would accept your apology, and offer one of my own if somehow my attempting to write the truth offended you. But if you chose to wait, despite knowing you are wrong, then you leave me no choice but to ask, because such things are so vile, that you be permanently banned. Wikipedia depends on goodwill, and assumption of good faith. You have violated that again and again. Nonetheless, I will accept an apology now, before I am formally cleared, if you chose to Unequivocally and absolutely state that you were wrong to accuse me, and do so on the sock puppet evidence page - and I will then still insist the check/use to be done for the record. If you wait, when you and I both know that you did this knowing it was wrong, then you should not be an editor, a contributor, or anything else in wikipedia, and I will do my best to see appropriate discipline for your personal attacks imposed. It is up to you. The two friends, one an attorney, the other a Professor at the University of Maryland, both felt I should ask for your banning, period, and feel I am too soft hearted. But I know people can make mistakes in anger and frustration. The question is, are you willing to do now what you will have to do later? Because when you do it then, it is meaningless, because it will be forced. That, to me, means you need to be banned, period, for an ongoing series of events, and I can show them all. Is this what you want?old windy bear 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Old windy bear, nobody can be forced to do anything on wikipedia. As far as banning goes.. I think you a being melodramitic. If I have done anything to be banned for, then that will be done. The remark about you going nuts after my last edit on the Bonnie and Clyde was regarding this behavior; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bonnie_and_Clyde&diff=50467456&oldid=50467211

• "..and in short, are a POV writer with a right wing agenda to sanitize away the nasty details, I don't think you fool anyone with your agenda" (Not True)
• Reagan is fine example, which I may just rip to pieces since your puff contributions on him typify your work" (I was with consensus)
• Your writing is simply that of an advocate, not a historian, and while I have not intervened elsewhere YET - though others have, you won't do it here. (Not True I always strive for NPOV)
• (I will)...source you to tears(????)
• You always POV every article you have contributed to (Not True)
• Further, NONE of your deletions or additions, on any article, have been discussed on the talk page (Not True I use edit summaries and talk pages)
• You have NEVER followed any of wikipedia's policies for discussing, sourcing, or seeking consensus, (Not True)

After these rants, Katefan0 had to talk you down thus; I have no opinion on the merits of the two sides, but I would like to ask that you please ratchet down the yelling and bolding. That's certainly not helping you two find a resolution.

The remark that I made the other day was about your behavoir, not you as a person. I lined it out days ago and apologized Your bullying has already driven me from the B&C and Frank Hamer pages. That is a fate acomplé.

Mytwocents 19:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Mytwocents No one has ever attempted to bully anyone into doing anything. I honestly believe your tactics - name calling, constant attacks, refusing over and over to accept consensus, false accusations, warrant some form of discipline from the mediation group, and I will seek it. You asked me to consider carefully whether I thought you were personally attacking me, and you:

• called me names on an editor's page;
• accused me repeatedly of POVing an article factually, and when called on it by Andy, and asked to list the factual inaccuracies, could not list one;
• complained about toned down language I had deliberately done to avoid POV, you got direct quotes, which Andy was right avoided any question of interpretation, so you objected to quotes, and when Andy and everyone else disagreed, you complain a sock puppet did it - is there no lie, no antic you will pull to get your way?
• now have accused me of the most unethical thing any contributor can do, in my opinion, which is sock puppeting, which you and I both know perfectly well I did not do, and will be cleared of;
• against wikipedia rules you reformat other people's work because - and who are you, some master of the rules of debate? Where did you get your Phd in english? -- said you thought you were facilitating discussion by eliminating sections created by other people and changing their postings - in total violation of ALL wikipedia rules;
• Kate told EVERYONE to rachet down your quote: Katefan0 had to talk YOU ALSO down thus; I have no opinion on the merits of the two sides, but I would like to ask that you please ratchet down the yelling and bolding. That's certainly not helping you two find a resolution. Two as in you and I - you lie here again by omitting that you were just as loud and opinionated as you claim I am - the difference is I did not go to an editor's page and then call you names behind your back;
• I do feel you have an agenda, and make no bones about it; your statement - which you never deny - that you wanted the stunning posthumous revelation that Frank Hamer kidnapped a man, and sold a pardon for a murderer of two young Texas highway patrolmen to keep from being arrested. You said "you didn't believe it so it shouldn't be on there." You never understood that it does not matter what you believe, or I believe, it is what the facts, the history says, that goes in an encyclopedia;
• I am sorry, but your statement on Hinton's revelation alone does reveal that you don't write as a historian, but as an advocate, to what you believe, to quote you directly;

I offered you the opportunity, because you asked me, to retract an allegation you and I both know is going to proven untrue very shortly. You decline, and attack me again, lying about the admonition from Kate, which applied to you as well - and you lie by ommission by not going on to say that you went from there to calling me names online behind my back, in gross and total violation of any sembalance of wikipedia rules. I have asked for mediation, i believe you should not be on wikipedia, but guess what? Unlike you, I know that I am NOT an administrator; mediation is under User:Essjay the fairest of mediators and a brilliant writer and philosopher. He and the committee will make a judgement on my complaint, and I will abide by it. I am glad you are gone from ruining Bonnie and Clyde, and Frank Hamer, for I, someone who hurts to sit for prolonged periods and type, spent a huge numbers of hours preparing to rewrite that article accurately - how many books on the duo did you read? - and then an infinite number more defending it against your POV rewrites. Now I can go, as I have been asked - look at my page (who asks you to review things? Which of us is held in what regard in wikipedia -- and work on the Sassanid Empire for Brother Amir, and the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia for the Military Committee, as I have been asked, without you ruining either article after I fix them. That, I assure you, is a relief. You bully most people into submission, perhaps Vietnam or a hard life, left me unable to buckle to your name calling, bullying, lying, false accusations and general crap. I hope you are banned, but if not, at least you won't be bothering good articles I am working on. NOW, YOU HAVE ASKED ME NOT TO WRITE ON YOUR TALK PAGE, DON'T RETURN TO MINE AGAIN. IF I FIND ANOTHER MESSAGE FROM YOU ON MY TALK PAGE, I WILL FILE ON YOU FOR THAT ALSO. Like a drama queen in high school, you had to push this to mediation, now you have it, let us see where it goes. I stand by my record, and you will yours.old windy bear 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this will brighten up your talk page

Please see the new articles (stubs all) created for some of Martel's early battles at the Template:Battles of the Frankish Civil War of 715-718. Srnec 05:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Srnec This is great! I can help expand these also! Thanks so much!old windy bear 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Srnec Thanks - don't you find it fascinating that virtually alone of the leaders in history, he never executed his defeated rivils? It almost goes with his refusing a crown or a court. I really believe, from the histories, he honestly believed he had a mission, and the normal trappings of power, including vengence on one's enemies, were simply irrelevant to him. Thoughts? old windy bear 00:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Khwarezmid Empire

Very nice! Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Loks Thank you very much! I will continue to source and link it, but I believe it is greatly improved, the historial ambiguities and inaccuracies removed, and better explanations for the macrohistorical events, such as Jochi's final estrangement from his father and brothers, are in place. I also added all my references, and of course sourced and linked, and will add more. Where do you need me next? It is an honor to work with you, and I am at your disposal. old windy bear 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Oldwindybear

Hello Oldwindybear, I am one of the admins regarding the case. I can say that it has been returned inconclusive, so neither you or Stillstudying will be blocked. A request for checkuser was discussed between me and Dijxtra, and decided not to go ahead with it. If you need further help, do not hesitate to contact me or Dijxtra. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ilo-Lima|^{(talk) Thank you for your courtesy in letting me know, and while I wince at the inconclusiveness - who wants a shadow when you are innocent and check/user can be used to ascertain the truth? - I believe yourself and Dijxtra fair admins, and I told him I would abide by your judgement, and so I will. I would have rather been conclusively cleared, but I understand from talking with another admin, that check/user simply cannot be used in all cases, it has to be one of importance -here the so called puppet did not even influence the article, I have a huge volume of work you doubtless looked at, some disputed, and no sock puppet charges, (why only use one in one case, if you are arguing other issues!) and finally, the lack of any real evidence. I would have liked to have been cleared, especially since it seems to have driven an innocent contributor from wikipedia. I donate about 20 hours a week researching and editing, because I truly believe wikipedia has the potential to become the greatest free repository of knowledge in history, accessable to the most people, and I want to do my part. I deeply regret that someone's personal animus towards me apparantly has driven an innocent contributor out, and denied wikipedia that person's contributions. But I understand and accept your decision. Thanks for letting me know.old windy bear 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)}

User:Stillstudying

Hey Old windy bear, I think you may be interested in reading his latest on his talk page and my "vandalism" page. It seems we may have been unsucessful in keeping him. Could you express your sentiments as well on his talk page in one last effort to keep him around? --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess he may be sticking around after all. I'm glad --Charlie^{(@CIRL | talk)} 17:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

talk I am adding a statement of support, which I was reluctant to do before, least my pal MyRepeatedNastyAttacks make something else out of it, and discourage this new contributor even more. But you deserve the credit for stepping in, and I am glad. I do admit to wincing when I read he thinks I cannot say anything in less than 10,000 words or whatever the exact sentence was, lol! (of course, if you read my postings, he is right, darn it! I never said in one word what i could in one hundred!)

Still, he should stay. And yes, I think most people saw what you did, that I am NOT him, and it is obvious to anyone who looks. THANKS though for coming through and convincing a new contributor that wikipedia is really bout people like you, not people like MyTwoCents, who I am hoping to stop in mediation from doing this sort of thing.old windy bear 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Hey, sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you; I've been in and out a lot, and was gone all weekend.

Having read over your comments on RfM, and looked into it a bit, I don't think the matter is right for mediation; we can only intervene when both sides are willing to agree, and we tend to deal with issues of article content, rather than user conduct. I'm going to copy your comments across to ANI and see if someone more familiar with the situation can't look into it. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Essjay Hi my friend. I trust you implicitly, so I endorse any decision you make. My only concern with this user is that he uses ANY tactic to bully people into endorsing POV changes. The Bonnie and Clyde article served as a great example. He could nto get his way on the talk page, so he asked for peer review. Peer review was actually great, because AndyZ taught me to finally link sources, which enormously strengthened the article, Cherry suggested we use fewer sections, but keep the facts, which we did, and AndyZ and Ewulp compiled "weasal words" which we replaced with direct quotes, to avoid subjective interpretations. Ewulp rewrote the 2nd introductory paragraph, after I had rewritten it to have 3, she finalized it by polishing. She then polished the aftermatch section. We had a great time, and really worked well as a group to polish the article. This only enraged MyTwoCents, because he felt the article become mroe "pro" Bonnie and Clyde. Essjay, honest to God, my goal is NEVER "pro" anything, but rather to go where history and the truth takes me. At any rate, he responded with a series of virulant personal attacks, which of course ended with a phony sock puppet charge. If you read the talk page of User:Stillstudying and this one, the admins that looked at his edits, and mine, found no resembalance, and virtually no evidence linking us in any way. We both had asked for check=user to put any of this to rest, and so that the mediation committee could perhaps sancation this guy for his methods, which are atrocious, but apparantly there was so little (how about non-existent) evidence, check-user could not be justified. I had hoped mediation would stop MyTwoCents from his bullying, but again, I trust you completely, and if you say this is not right for mediation, so be it. Charlie was able to talk the new contributor out of leaving wikipedia due to MyTwoCents, and AnnH and another admin pitched in to welcome him, so I believe they prevented what was my nightmare, that someone totally innocent get caught up in MyTwoCents personal vendetta against me. ANYWAY, thanks for looking at it, you are a good person - I was asked, if you look at this talk page, to leave a message for stillstudying to encourage him to stay, and one of the people I told him are the real HEART of wikipedia, what is really about, is you. Not the bullies or vandals, but people like you, (and i hope me a little too, i spend about 15-20 hours a week working on history projects for this site, trying to help make it the best on the web, please read my rewrite of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Central_Asia for the military committee!) but the heart is people like you, trying to make this the greatest free repository of knowledge EVER, accessable to the world. Look to you, not to bullies. ANYWAY, thanks again.old windy bear 10:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 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. —ERcheck @ 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Touring tours

Hi, thanks for the feedback about the Battle of Tours. I'd like to continue to contribute. In particular I think it compares quite unfavorably with Battle of Badr, just to note one example, and I bet there are more than a few other battle articles with better structure, linking, and references. Specifically, Tours has long paras with few inline citations. I'd like to work on structure and referencing, converting refs per WP:CITE into the "ref" tag system, etc. As you may note from my user page, I've worked on some pretty contentious articles with what I hope are decent results. I'll do my best to maintain NPOV and I don't expect it to be too controversial. Cheers, Kaisershatner 15:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaisershatner I welcome your help, especially with language and references. Your work is outstanding, and I hope that you can help me turn raw research into the world class article this could be. Except for the occasional vandal - like the recent one -we, western and Muslim writers, had agreed on the general language of the article, that it fairly represented all viewpoints, (I read arabic and tried to fairly represent all viewpoints, simply sticking to the histories, ironically especially the Islamic histories of the period, such as the Arab Chronicles). The history is fair, and thorough, and genuinely represents all viewpoints, and virtually everyone truly believes fairly. Even the Muslim history of the period praises Martel, (who accomplished something no one else in military history ever did, in withstanding heavy cavalry with unarmoured infantry without bows or firearms) and I think we made clear that Emir Abdul Rahman was regarded as a great commander who made two crucial mistakes. Both west and east writers have praised the article for fairly presenting all viewpoints, and not being judgmental culturally(such as the comment that whether the victory - which virtually everyone agreed played a macrohistorical role in preventing Islamic conquest of Europe, and the regulation of the Roman Catholic Church to a relic of history was a "good" or "bad" thing depending on one's cultural perspective and personal belief) I can help with citing, but I would really appreciate your work on eliminating some of the clumsiness you noted and helping flow. I did look at your work, and you are better at converting refs per WP:CITE than I am, and I would greatly welcome that help also! THANKS A GREAT DEAL! old windy bear 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your feedback. I'm happier with the upper sections now, although they will still need to come along in terms of referencing. Keep in mind WP:NOR. We need to show how the reams of assertions in this article are the views of citable authorities, rather than the (educated but probably not valid in the encyclopedic sense) views of Oldwindybear et al. However, the biggest part of the project remains the lower half, where sourcing is only one small part of the problem. I made a small effort to remove a bit of text. The wider implications of the battle are important, but the level of detail about Constantinople and the subsequent Muslim invasions, as well as the bit about the succession in Aquitaine, is just too much. There should either be subarticles or that stuff should be pasted into existing articles about subsequent Martel campaigns. I gather there are already some other pages about him, but I haven't really looked. I will continue to redact as I find the time. However, this article has the bones of a real featured article, if we can pare it down and get the citations right. Kaisershatner 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Kaisershatner I think you are doing a great job, and please believe, the history is not oldwindybear, but honest to God citations, (which are easily enough checked, many, like Poke, Wallace, Watson, Gibbons and Creasy are online!) I think you are right on the implications - we have to find a balance, (or you will), with putting this in macrohistorical perspective, because it did effect later campaigns, and most contemporary historians concede it was very much of macrohistorical importance in stopping Islamic expansion into the remainder of the old Western Roman Empire while they had every advantage of technology, (the strirrup) and the weaponry, the bow-carrying horsemen and heavy mailed cavalry the Muslims had actually stolen from the Sassanid warrior caste. I also believe, in reading the Arabic texts of the time, that it was a stunning psychological blow that the Caliphate did not fully recover from before the Battle of Zab sundered it forever. In that sense especially this Battle really was pivotal in both stopping what should have been an unstoppable army, equipping Martel for his later campaigns, (because he literally used the dead cavalry of his foe to outfit the first Carolingian heavy cavalry!) and making the Carolingians the defenders of Christianity after Martel himself had literally almost been excommunicated for using church property to pay his men! If you need specific cites, other than the ones already there, I can give you page numbers on things like Antonio Santosuosso's book, I have it. But again, most of those cites are literally online. In closing thanks for your help, because the history really is solid, but it was cumbersome, and you have really made it FLOW, and I think the presentation of all viewpoints makes it WP:NPOV. THANKS! old windy bear 17:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

My pleasure. I know getting there was a struggle, but I do think that the give-and-take has resulted in net improvements to a very good article. It would be a pity to let vandals muck it up. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

DS1953 It was a struggle, and I am sorry to say I did not always handle the argument as wikipedia well as I should have, lol - the horrible way Katefan0 was driven from wikipedia has made me realize the necessity to take a better tone with everyone, and truly work with others. ANYWAY, in the end, all of us pulled together, and I think you are right, we ended up with a VERY good article, and your effort to protect the hard-earned consensus is VERY VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. old windy bear 21:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear I'm glad the Bonnie & Clyde edits were satisfactory -- working on this article has been a very positive experience. I took a look at some of your work in the military history project as you suggested, and I'll be glad to tweak a few sentences where it seems helpful. Here's hoping that you'll be contributing to WP for many more years as you're one of the workhorses here and you bring a mountain of knowledge along. Ewulp 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp What a nice thing to say! Thank you! I was delighted to see you over on the military side, because you are quite simply the best editing writer I have worked with. Another editor has been helping me over there also - as you know, my great weakness is a tendency to pack too much information in, making the article too long, but I was truly delighted to see you, because you are the best in the game, and will improve things greatly.

On Bonnie and Clyde, I am obviously glad that you were able to edit it in a way that everyone could live with, and improve the article at the same time. That was a 2-fer. Great edits, end of controversy. I usually spend considerable time researching these articles before working on them, but again, knowledge is not enough - it has to flow, which is your specialty! Thanks as always for the help! It is a great pleasure working with you! old windy bear 10:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The June 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. Kirill Lokshin 05:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Aetius

I am really, really tired about this stuff ( because of many protest and needing to say why I have writen that ). Now I will say that point to point:

• 1) You know that Boniface has invited Vandals in Africa but Carthago has fallen 7 years after his death in time of Aetius !! You can say or think what you want but in that 7 years Aetius has have more that enough time to protect Africa. He has choosen not to do so !! He is guilty.
• 2) If I do not make mistake in Gibbon book has been that Attalus has refused to give ships to Visigoth for they coming in Africa. In first opportunity after Aetius death emperors Majorian, Anthemius and Leo has started or tried to start liberation of Africa. Have they make mistake or Aetius ? Yes they have lost but only because Carthago has fallen in time of Aetius!!
• 3) Gibbon is saying that Roman Empire has fallen because of barbarian soldiers and for that Aetius is not guilty. Sorry for mistake but Roman Empire has fallen because Vandals has been in control of Africa. Example for that is Byzantium which has barbarian soldiers ( Alans )in control of state 440 - 470 but they have been defeated because they on any other tribe has not been allowed to go in great numbers on other coast ( from Europe to Asia or Africa )and stay there.
• 4) We can say what we want but until time West Roman Empire has Africa he has opportunity to survive. This will be Empire without Britain, Galia and Hispania but Africa ( and Sardinia and Corsica ) with Italy ( and Sicilia ) and Illiricum but this will be still Empire with help of Constantinople. You can never forget that Byzantium has many, many times send soldiers ( from 408 - 474 )or denars with hope of West Roman Empire stabilization.
• 5) My last point is that Odoacer has been Roman soldier which after taking power has not created new emperor only because then Empire has been only province of Italy. What is point of creating Emperor without benefit of ruling other part of Empire. There are only problems with possible batlle against new emperor which will want to take Odoacer power. If Africa has been under Empire control ( Barbarians has been without ships. New invasion has not been possible ) Odoacer will be emperor regent similar to Ricimer and not destroyer of Empire.

Simple speaking Africa has been desperately needed for Empire to survive, but Aetius ( not Boniface )has given this province to Vandals. I will put this text on on discussion part of Aetius article.rjecina 30.06.2006

rjecina You unfortunately are stating your own conclusions, not those of historians, and they will have to be deleted, no matter how sound or unsound they are, wikeipedia does not allow original research or conclusions. You must cite specific historians saying Aetius lost Africa, or Aetius paved the way for the downfall by reactionary stances, or those comments will be struck, sorry. I could debate your conclusions, but I neither have to, nor want to. You have failed to cite ONE historian that names Aetius as a reactionary who lost Africa, and deliberately failed to rebuild - because it was already gone - the Roman Navy in the west. Gibbon considers Aetius the last of the great Romans, and even Bury does not label him a reactionary. You need to come up with sources, or those comments will be deleted as original research and your own conclusions. Please understand you simply cannot make those conclusions on your own. It violates every tenet of wikipedia policy. old windy bear 17:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want truth I have only now been looking that you have give me answer in your discussion page ( before I have write answer on Aetius page ). Do not be offended but Creasy book The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World is typical west european way to look things. Greatest part of this battles are historical not really important, or are having less importance of what is writen. For example how this book is writen ( and European myth ) take only Battle of Tours in 732. Yes this battle is important but less of Constantinople siege between 674 and 678. Waterloo on other hand is not important. I will now stop write our discusson. You are free to work with Aetius what you want. rjecina 23:40 CET 30.06.2006

rjecina Of course each culture has it's biases, but it is interesting that you mention the seige of Constandinople from 674-678, because the Arabic and Islamic histories place much less importance on that seige than the seige of 718, which featured the largest fleet ever assembled, plus the land army, commanded by the brother of the Caliph. With all respect, you assume a European bias in my history, but that is not the case. Tours is of macrohistorical importance because it marked the clear defeat of an army which should have prevailed, which had they, would have overwhelmed Christian Europe and ended the effective growth of the Catholic Church. But seige of the Mother of Cities in 718 was at least equally important, and far more macrohistorically important than the failure of the first seige which you cite, which merely tested the land walls. I will adjust the article on Aetius not because you are necessarily wrong in your conclusions, but because no reputable historian, east or west, has concluded as you write, and we cannot assert original research. old windy bear 22:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Norwich Sources on Charles Martel

OldWindyBear,

You've done a damn good job helping to edit the Charles Martel Page, I posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charles_Martel that I was curious where the Norwich sources were. well I checked out his whole series from the library and was curious where - > "" John Julius Norwich, the most widely-read authority on the Byzantine Empire, says the Franks halting Muslim Expansion at Tours literally preserved Christianity as we know it."" is found.

thanks in advance!

User:Urbana I have the whole series also at home. There are four books on Bzyantium, 3 in the major series, ("Byzantium: The Early Centuries, Byzantium: The Apogee and Byzantium: The Decline and Fall.") plus a truncated book which sums them up, and of course his works on Venice, and the Normans. I am sure you will have a fine time reading them, and locating his conclusions yourself. I would suggest you read his books on Venice and the Normans also, if you want what you are seeking. You might note that we have gone to other exact quotations on the Battle, rather than paraphrase Norwich. But I am sure you will see why when you read his works in their entirity. He is one of the more readable historians, and you will enjoy all his works. old windy bear 19:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I am guaranteed to find after reading his 3 book series his quotes on Charles Martel? Thank you again for your help.

Oh, and, there is also some about Martel/Tours in his books on Venice and the Normans?

Urbana 20:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Urbana First, I guarantee nothing except death and taxes. Secondly, I don't remember listing Norwich's books as the source for his conclusions - which were not quoted, they were paraphrased, you might wish to check. Third, if you can read, we already replaced the language in question - since it was not an exact quote, and was paraphrased - with exact quotes which eliminate any controversy in language, since it was obvious where you were going with this. Did you really think you fooled anyone? That issue was settled before it became one. Best always to use EXACT quotes instead of paraphrasing when language issues emerge. We went through something similiar with the Bonnie and Clyde article, and settled it by use of exact quotes instead of paraphrasing, and did the same here before it became an issue. As far as what Norwich thinks, read and discover for yourself. It is amusing that you think it unusual that the Franks might be a part of history on the Normans and Venice, as the Carolingians were a huge part of the history of the eras both were part of. As they were of the Eastern Empire. I suggest you read, if you want to know what Norwich thought. It was obvious what you were doing with your false flattery and that issue was settled before it began, so exact language quoting was used instead of paraphrasing, which as I noted, keeps those who seek to cause difficulities with semantics without any basis to do so. (you do know what semantics are, I assume?) You might also want to check interviews he has given, articles, et al. Every single "quote" now in the article is a direct quote, with no paraphrasing, which forestalls where you were going on this. old windy bear 01:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello oldwindybear. I saw you were rewriting Flavius Aetius, and wanted to ask you a couple of questions: 1) why is Gibbon so hard on the Eastern Empire? 2) Is Norwich really worth reading on the Eastern Empire, if you have waded through Gibbon? 3) Why was there controversy on Flavius Aetius, who appeared to be pretty much the last great Roman hero? Stillstudying Max 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! To answer your questions:

1. Gibbon was a proud member of Imperial Britannica's elite. He viewed the world from that cultural perspective, and was rather contemptous, rightly or wrongly, of Bzyantium's morals, and tended to ignore it's incredible span in history, (an empire that lasted 11 centuries, outliving it's founding empire by almost a millinium), and it's accomplishments, (defeating a host of foes from the Vangarians to the Vandals, Islamic conquerers galore, up till when the age of cannon rendered the land walls obsolete!)

2. Norwich is definitely worth reading. His works are more populist than Gibbon, but better reading, and a far fairer perspective on Bzyantium and it's works.

3. Rightly or wrongly, some people blame Flavius Aetius for not singlehandedly resurrecting the Roman Navy, and ignore the fact he kept the totally dying Empire alive in the West pretty much single handedly for almost 30 years.

Hope that answers your questions! Take care! old windy bear 18:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear from you oldwindybear -- I took a look at the Aëtius article (learning a few things I should've paid attention to in school), & merged a number of sentences to tighten things up -- check it over & make sure I didn't lose anything important, & feel free to alter as needed. Ewulp 03:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Excellent job! It is good to hear from you also, and thanks for the help! Aetius is one of history's more interesting characters, and I certainly thank you for your kind assistance! old windy bear 09:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As to Charlemagne, mediation, and original research

You're right. He (Rex) is just trying to force original research down everybody's throat. He has never provided a source. We have. I only agreed to mediation because it is obvious where it will go, especially considering his uncivil behaviour. Finally, if we continue to source our (true) claims, there's nothing anybody (including a mediator) can do about it. Srnec 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec Let me know if I can be of assistance. I am not the writer you are, as we both know, lol, but I am a good researcher. You are, as you always are, on sound ground historically, and having read all the postings carefully, he has, as you so aptly pointed out, provided no sourcing at all, merely conclusions of his own. I recently had to rewrite the article on Flavius Aetius for precisely the same reason. An editor had come to the interesting conclusion that Aetius had "lost" Africa by failing to rebuild the Roman Navy, and then ousting the Vandals. Given the decayed state of the west, this was a rather bizarre stance; (in fact, as you well know by that time the western Romans had virtually no military of their own, only auxillaries and foederoti). He had no sources, and only original research in which he had concluded that Aetius, as de facto ruler of the west from 432-450 should have somehow rebuilt the Navy, and retaken Africa. His conclusions were interesting, but he had NOT ONE SOURCE. This situation is quite similiar. I am actually chagrined that I missed the debate, as I have always been quite interested in the Carolingians. If I can be of assistance, let me know, as I support you 100%. Rex is not only attempting to force original research down everyone's throat, original research which contradicts all accepted histories, but doing so quite rudely to boot. Where do these people come from? old windy bear 19:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Any sources which indicate that West Francia and East Francia are the states of France and Germany in their infancy and/or that they were created by the Carolingians (through the division of their empire) would support the case against Rex. Rex seems unable to comprehend that later states, such as Switzerland and the Netherlands, grew out of French and German states which already existed (though, obviously, not in the same way as the current France and Germany). He simply states the "fact" that Germany did not exist before 1871 as if that's an argument. Srnec 20:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing I still had your talkpage on my watchlist, othwise I would have missed this little conspiracy.

I see snerc still believes in his little France + Germany = Europe, theory ... too bad but that's that. Also you missed my point entirely.Which is: The history of Europe is not only about Germany and France, therefore it is injust to only list France and Germany as "heirs", or to give them a special position in situations were they are equal to others. Have fun!  Rex  20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec These are just the sources I happen to have at home. More will be forthcoming.

"After the treaty of Verdun ( 843) the three main parts of the (Carolingian) Empire began to shape themselves into what were later to be known as France, Italy and Germany." A Short History of Germany Page 3 of 308 by S. H. Steinberg; Macmillan, 1945;

"Nevertheless, the new states of tenth-century Europe -- France, Germany and Italy and the kingdoms of Lorraine, Burgundy and Provence, which arose from the decomposed body of the Carolingian empire -- were not merely the accidental results of the upheavals of the ninth century. Beneath the superficial uniformity imposed by the Franks, each province of the Carolingian empire its own life, its own history, its own problems and its own geographical peculiarities." The Origins of Modern GermanyPage 5 of 484 by G. Barraclough; Basil Blackwell, 1946;

"Germany's future turned upon the fact that the Carolingian Empire had disintegrated before the old tribal configuration could be erased. The ruin of the ducal dynasties had not entailed the suppression of the old stem loyalties, nor had the basic political geography of the country changed. During the ninth century the counts and margraves, who were usually Franks from Gaul, endeavored to keep alive the fiction of imperial authority in Germany. However, by the early tenth century they realized that they alone could offer adequate military protection to their vassals and the common people. With de facto power came a novel spirit of independence. The descendants of the alien counts then went about reviving the stem duchies. As dukes (Herzöge), these rulers became the embodiments of regional authority.

The position of the dukes was strengthened during the short reign of Conrad I ( 911-19), the first king of Germany." Germany in Western Civilization Page 41 of 848 by William Harvey Maehl; University of Alabama, 1979.

"The Frankish monarchy that Charlemagne founded established royal power based on military force combined with consecration by the church. Thus he had the right to appoint both the feudal and church nobility and to give them lands (fiefs). His monarchy epitomized the medieval synthesis, the interlocking of church and state. The king perceived himself as the vicar of God and equal in power to the pope. Thus he sought the acknowledgment of his vassals, but did not consider himself dependent on them for his political legitimacy. The German feudal duchies, the military regions controlled by dukes, had been created as a part of Frankish expansion to the east. They formed in the territories of the Germanic tribes that Charlemagne subdued, such as Saxony. The dukes in these regions were given fiefs by the king and established secondary dynasties in their own, that the very Saxons Charlemagne fought so viciously to subdue formed the dynasty that reestablished the German monarchy. Page 34 of 231 The History of Germany by Eleanor L. Turk; Greenwood Press, 1999;

old windy bear 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex Rex, watch all you wish, you may come to my talk page if you speak civilly, otherwise, you will be deleted. If you wish to discuss history, then cite sources, as I just have. Your general incivility will not be tolerated here. On the other hand, if you wish to present a point, and source it, I am perfectly willing to listen. But opinions don't count here, yours or mine, history does, and it must be sourced. old windy bear 20:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it should be, so can someone show me an article or something in that direction which says that "Germany" and "France" solely "laid the groundwork for the French and German states"? There's no denying that other "foundations" were also laid, as it weren't only German and French territories that formed the empire of charlemagne. I happened to see a section on this very talkpage in which you Oldwindybear, say it litterally. [4]

Apart from all that, if seems you don't like my tone, well I'm not very fond of yours either.I am not a troll or a vandal and would not like to be treated as one.  Rex  20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex Why Rex, we don't have to like each other to treat one another with courtesy, though I don't dislike you. I don't even know you! I simply don't want the tone you struck with accusing me of participating in a conspiracy. I disagree with the stance that Germany as a country, nation-state, did not exist prior to the 19th century. (And I would maintain the sources above make clear it existed far earler, and was a direct descendant of East Francia of the Carolingian Empire) Certainly the Carolingian Empire consisted of the Low Countries as well - both Charles Martel and his grandson are revered as heroic figures there. The point is, that the Carolingian Empire gave direct birth to what is now France and Germany, as the above citations go to prove, that there was a German state as early as the 9th century. I certainly won't treat you like a vandal if you come and discuss history as you just did. Again, we do not have to like each other, though frankly, I see no point in needless acrimony over what are essentially philosophical differences. (And as previously noted, I did not like being accused of being a conspirator, and you don't like being treated like a vandal, so let us both not do either!) I prefer to discuss this as reasonable persons, and go to historians, since original research, thus our opinions, are barred by wikipedia policy. old windy bear 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You and I seem to have a different understanding of a German State. For me there was no Germany before 1871.However, I will of course not deny the existance of the many little German princedoms, "states", fiefs, duchies, etc. with Germans and people with German culture. This was the Holy Roman Empire, not Germany ... and this is were I apparently think different from the rest. When I read the term "medieval Germany" I do not think about a country in the middle ages, no, I think about what happened in the area of a modern country during the middle ages. That's why I object to the claim that the Netherlands are breakaways of Germany ... because for me there was no Germany, there was the Holy Roman Empire, and the holy Roman Empire wasn't Germany.

I cannot understand how one can take one entire country like Germany and effectivly say: even the farthest corner of Germany and France have more frankish herritage/foundations than their actual heartland, the low countries.  Rex  21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex I would equate it with the United States, (though that is not an exact comparison!). The 13 original colonies - though they had the same name - are certainly not the current United States. I realize this is not a totally valid comparison, but what I am trying to say is that the German state of today is a descendant of East Francia, and the German state which arose out of the Carolingian Empire, just as the 50 United States of today are a descendant of the 13 colonies. I don't believe the Holy Roman Empire was Germany, though certainly after Otto the Great the heart of the Empire was Germanic! Conrad, for instance, is recognized as the King of Germany, but he was not Holy Roman Emperor. I understand your point, that today's Germany is far different from medivial Germany, but I think it is a descendant. Essentially, the Carolingians were the fathers of ALL of modern Europe, with the exception of Spain. old windy bear 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That's what I wanted to hear "the Carolingians were the fathers of ALL of continental modern Western Europe".Yes the article only talks about Germany and France.I mean Germany was virtually one of the last countries to become a true country, a state. I mean if that's to thank to those supposed Frankish foundations, the Carolingians weren't very good masons.  Rex  21:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex Actually, we agree on that. The Carolingians were not good masons in that they still divided the land between all the sons, instead of settling on a single ruler. That, coupled with the vastness of the Empire, all those tribes and tongues, which depended for unity on large part on fate - Martel ruled alone, Carloman abdicated leaving Peppin to rule alone, and again, Charlemagne's brother died, leaving him to rule alone, and by the time he died, only Louis the Pious remained to rule alone, so you had 4 generations of mostly sole heirs, but a tradition that resulted in the treaty of Verdun as soon as you had multiple heirs. And that treaty split the Empire during a period it desperately needed to be united. (The Vikings, as one historian dryly noted, "Charlemagne knew them not, but his son would know them well...") I do have to say though that Christian Europe was certainly lucky to have the Carolingians reach their height during the Islamic Expansion Era reached into Europe. Well, have a good evening! I am going to lay down, I enjoyed "talking history" with you - let us not be at odds. We just proved we can discuss these issues pleasantly. Good night! old windy bear 22:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what you get when you hold on to your old Frankish costums. In practically every other tribe the whole of the possesions passed on to one heir.The Franks dived everything.

I don't see however how the carolingian empire laid the foundations of only 2 modern states.I can't believe that, especially knowing the long road it took germany to actually become a state.  Rex  10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex Good morning! I will address the creation of France, Italy and Germany by the collapse of the Carolingian Empire later, (I am getting ready for work!) though Italy in particular certainly took long enough to solidify as a single state. (Germany went through phases, it became a nation in the 9th century, but lost it later on, only to redemn itself in the late 19th century, as you are well aware!) You are dead right on the Franks and their custom of adhering to the Germanic tribal practice of dividing their lands among their sons, and the frequent division, reunification and redivision of territories often resulted in murder and warfare within the leading families, and a collapse of the Empire. Sad! You take care and have a good day, and I will "talk" to you later. old windy bear 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to intrude on a conversation that's getting along famously without me, but I want to direclty address what I believe are Rex's misunderstandings of my position. I do not claim that "the carolingian empire laid the foundations of only 2 modern states." I claim it laid the foundations of France and Germany. These are more than just modern states. Yes, they still exist, but their origins are pre-modern and their histories show them to vastly different states territorially in the Middle Ages than they are now. Borders change over time. The Netherlands are included in "France and Germany" when we understand that they are breakaways from those two historical, political, and geographical entities. The Netherlands did not break away from the German Empire or the Federal Republic of Germany, or from the French Empire or the Fifth French Republic, but they did break from the Kingdoms of France and Germany (by then united politically with the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation"). Thus, the statement that the Carolingian Empire gave rise to only those two states is accurate. For Italy existed as a kingdom before the Carolings and only West and East Francia (Middle Francia being subsumed in them) were Carolingian creations, created out of the Frankish Realm of the Merovingians. Srnec 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec Hi Srnec! Rex and I are discussing this quite pleasantly, though we still disagree on the Carolingian origin of France and Germany. I would stipulate that historians do say plainly that the Carolingian Empire gave direct birth to two states, East and West Francia, since Middle Francia, or Italy, had certainly existed previously, whereas France and Germany had not. I also think it beyond dispute historically that the Netherlands ultimately came out of what was East Francia, or Germany, since clearly Conrad was King over what is today the Netherlands, and he is unquestionably recognized as King of Germany. I think this book said it well:

"During the days of disorder which had followed the fall of Rome, (the true dark ages of history, the sixth and seventh centuries of our era,) the German tribes had been persuaded to accept the Christian religion and had recognised the Bishop of Rome as the Pope or spiritual head of the world. In the ninth century, the organising genius of Charlemagne had revived the Roman Empire and had united the greater part of western Europe into a single state. During the tenth century this empire had gone to pieces. The western part had become a separate kingdom, France. The eastern half was known as the Empire of the German nation, and the rulers of this federation of states then pretended that they were the direct heirs of Cæsar and Augustus. The Story of Mankind Pages 155-156 by Hendrik Van Loon, 1921

I think though perhaps much of this is semantics. Certainly the borders of France and Germany of the 9th Century are not that of today's France and Germany, but their origins go back to the Treaty of Verdun, and the splitting of the Carolingian Empire. old windy bear 18:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are just claiming that. You only want to include Germany and France as "heirs" or "succesors" of the Empire of Charlemagne, when I added every other nation once located in the empire they got deleted. Your excuses that other countries, like the Netherlands, just broke of from Germany is ridiculous. The Netherlands never broke of from Germany as it did not exist, also countries don't appear out of nothing. The Netherlands were recognised as an independant nation in 1648, eventhough they were independant 80 years before that, not even mentioning the origins of a dutch identity.  Rex  17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What came out of East Francia was the Holy Roman Empire which wasn't Germany.The Netherlands were first part of Middle Francia, then they were part of Germany.The royalty of medieval western europe was mainly of Frankish descend.The dukes and counts who ruled the Dutch states were it as well. When I think of these early foundations the article speaks of, I mainly think of Frankish nobility holding together a region, I think you think the same way.Then what makes France and Germany more entitled to be mentioned than other states?  Rex  18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I only want France and Germany mentioned because, in a historical sense, all the other states you mention are contained within the phrase "France and Germany." Rex, you're a broken record. I have tried to prove my point time and time again at various talk pages and user talk pages, but you never try to fully rebut my arguments or present arguments of your own. Secondly, you are surely aware that the first emperors were Middle Franks and Italians, not East Franks. Germany is only united politically to the Empire in the Late Middle Ages when papal coronation broke down and Burgundy and Italy had lost all royal significance. Answer one question, Rex: when did the modern nation called the Netherlands first begin to exist as an independent nation and what nation had its territory been a part of prior? Srnec 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When did the modern Nation of the Netherlands emerge? Officially: 1647, over 300 years before Germany would.Before that date there were Dutch states and such (like there were German states) but no real unity.

Funny thing though this is a piece from the History of the Netherlands (from the Dutch wikipedia, a featured article) "Na het verdrag van Meerssen (870) werd het middenrijk verdeeld tussen het West-Frankische Rijk, het latere Frankrijk, en het Oost-Frankische Rijk, het latere Heilige Roomse Rijk."

"After the treaty of Meerssen middle Francia was divided between West Francia, the ancestor of France, and East Francia , the later Holy Roman Empire."

Germany isn't mentioned. As it was incorporated within East Francia and later within the HRE. But again I ask, what foundations are we talking about? The ones I mentioned?  Rex  20:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I almost hate to hop into this, but here is some excerpts of history on Conrad, and Henry the Fowler, recognized as Kings of Germany, not HRE:

Conrad I, d. 918, German king (911–18). As duke of Franconia he distinguished himself by military exploits and in 911 was elected successor to Louis the Child by the Franconian, Saxon, Bavarian, and Swabian lords. Although supported by the bishops, he was unable to maintain strong central government. His reign was plagued by feuds and rebellions by the great feudal lords. Lorraine broke away and acknowledged Charles III of France; the Swabians continued warfare till Conrad's death; the duke of Bavaria, expelled, returned successfully. Conrad's most able foe was Henry the Fowler, duke of Saxony. Despite the enmity, Conrad's own deathbed advice was that Henry succeed him. Henry was elected (919) as Henry I. Conrad's failure to avert the continued Hungarian invasions and his alienation of the nobility increased provincial autonomy and almost dissolved the kingdom. [5]

Henry I or Henry the Fowler, 876?–936, German king (919–36), first of the Saxon line and father of Otto I, the first of the Holy Roman emperors. Henry succeeded his father as duke of Saxony in 912. A foe of King Conrad I, who futilely tried to subdue the rebellious Henry, he was nevertheless named (918) by Conrad as his successor. Designated king by Saxon and Franconian nobles in 919, Henry refused to be crowned by the bishops, thus maintaining his independence of the church. As king he immediately turned to restoring monarchical authority, which had been whittled away by the dukes. By 921 he had secured recognition of his royal authority from the dukes of Swabia and Bavaria. In 925 he won Lotharingia from its allegiance to France. Henry also dealt with the Magyar raids, which Conrad had failed to halt. In 924 after a Magyar invasion of Saxony, Henry arranged a nine-year truce and agreed to pay yearly tribute to the Magyars. He used this respite to introduce military reforms in Saxony and Thuringia. Saxon soldiers were trained for mounted combat, and the new efficiency of his army enabled him to take Brandenburg from the Wends. In the marches, or frontier regions, Henry built large fortresses, primarily for military purposes; however, he attracted some permanent settlers in these regions. In 933 the truce with the Magyars ended when Henry refused to pay tribute; he defeated the Magyars in a great battle at Riade, near the Unstrut River. He expanded his frontier at Danish expense in 934. Before his death Henry secured from the nobles the succession of his son as Otto I. His wife, Matilda, founded many monasteries, including Quedlinburg, where she lies buried with her husband. She is a saint of the Roman Catholic Church; her feast is Mar. 14. Encyclopedia information about Henry the Fowler The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

What is important about these two Kings of Germany? There was NO Holy Roman Empire during their rule, they ruled as Kings of Germany. It would be Otto the Great, Henry's son, who would restore the HRE. It seems to me this is pretty conclusive that there was a mediviel Kingdom of Germany, which was a descendant of the Carolingian Empire, which was NOT the Holy Roman Empire, and was the predecessor of today's Germany. old windy bear 20:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Henry the Fowler was the king of East Francia, the later Holy Roman Empire. This Holy Roman Empire, was not a politically stable empire, the Emperor had little control over the lands he controlled on paper. The real power laid with the Dukes, Princes and Counts of various small states. These states, under the leardship of Prussia formed Germany as we know it today. If we say that the empire of Charlemagne laid the foundation for Germany in the establishment of all these tiny states , then it is just as fair to say that countries like the Netherlands have their foundations there as well as they comprised of exactly the same "mixture".

Apart from all that ... even IF the Netherlands are a breakaway from Germany (which they are not, terminology people please) doesn't that mean they had the same foundations?  Rex  21:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rex, I think the reason that historians consider the Netherlands to be a descendant of Germany is because of the following:

"The Netherlands belonged to the Frankish empire of Charlemagne, with its heartland in what is today Belgium and northern France, and spanning France, Germany, northern Italy and much of Western Europe. In 843, the Frankish empire was divided into three parts, giving rise to France in the west, Germany in the east and a middle empire that lay between the two. Most of the Netherlands was part of the middle empire. Later this middle empire was split: most of the Dutch-speaking lands became a part of Germany...From 800 AD to 1000 AD, the Low Countries suffered considerably from Viking raids (one of which destroyed the wealthy city of Dorestad). Most of the Netherlands was occupied by the Vikings from 850 to 920. This was about the same time that France and Germany were fighting for supremacy over the middle empire. The Vikings wanted to restore the Frisian kingdom which they had lost 150 years earlier to the Franks. Resistance to the Vikings, if any, came from local nobles, who gained in stature as a result. Viking supremacy ended in 920 when King Henry (whom we spoke of above, the last King of Germany before the HREm and he brought what is now the Netherlands into Germany) of Germany liberated Utrecht. The German kings and emperors dominated the Netherlands in the 10th and 11th century. Germany was called the Holy Roman Empire after the coronation of King Otto the Great as emperor...Israel, Jonathan, The Dutch Republic. Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806old windy bear 00:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great and all old windy bear (Hahahaha, you should really go and speak with the people who make Dutch schoolbooks though ... If you like long discussions who'd probably end in a stalemate -joking- ) but what does this change about the foundations the charlemagne article speaks about? 08:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

To grab a quotation from Old Windy Bear's source above: most of the Dutch-speaking lands became a part of Germany. Thus, we need only say "Germany" to include the Dutch-speaking lands. Germany has a larger meaning historically than it does in modern political discussion. The Carolingian Empire was not the foundation of a Dutch state, but it was of a German one, of which the Dutch lands were a part until their own statehood was achieved later. This is not to separate the Dutch from their heritage and history, but to recognise that their is no political connection. For example, Canada is solely the product, politically, of the British Empire. Indeed, it is the first-born daughter of that empire, the first dominion. It is not a foundation of France. Its culture and customs may be influenced and affected by and its heritage and history includes France, but it is not a French polity in any way. It was separated politically from France for well more than a hundred years before Confederation, just as the Dutch nation is separated by over half a century from the Carolingian Empire before its independence. Srnec 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think the history is pretty clear that the following is true:

• Italy, under the Roman rule, existed as a political entity before the Carolingian Empire;
• France and Germany did not, but came directly out of the Carolingian Realm;
• The Netherlands were mostly a part of the German state after the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, when Henry the Fowler, King of the Germans, brought most of the present day Netherlands into the German Kingdom.
• The Netherlands subsequently gained their independance from Germany, which by then was not a Kingdom, but divided into a number of principalities, which were nominally under the HRE;
• Thus, the Carolingian Empire gave birth directly only to two modern states, Germany and France.old windy bear 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that this whole history is very complex, especially feudal Germany, as it comprised of many states and the king had virtually no real power. So I really wonder if it is apt to say that really was Germany.When I think of Germany I see a truly unified state, while the king of east francia was really a figure head of many smaller political entities. It was an empire ... and the one thing that all empires have and had in common is that they housed many different people and ethnicities. I dissagree with Srnec, because no matter what, in essence the Netherlands the Netherlands followed the path that Germany eventually would follow as well.Which was forming a state from smaller states with an history in feudalism.Point is the Netherlands did it much sooner.However, these foundation lying in ultimately Frankish feudalism, are the same as those of German states.So I ask again why should only Germany and France be mentioned, as many other countries can claim the same foundations?  Rex  20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

 Rex  Hey Rex, seriously, probably because only two countries are considered to have had their direct descent from the Carolingian Empire - France and the Kingdom of Germany. Certainly you are correct that Germany has gone through many permutations since that time, but it began as a national entity with the end of the Carolingian Empire, ditto for France. The low countries did not begin directly from the Carolingians. That is the reason that historically France and Germany are considered to be the only two directly descended from the Carolingian Realm. I am not diminishing your issues, but this is the accepted historical view. old windy bear 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex, I think your idea of a disunited East Francia is false. The stem duchies evolved in the latter half of the ninth century and, though powerful, were no more powerful than the kingship until the Investiture Controversy had basically sapped the royal power. Certainly the Ottonian and Salian monarchs were kings in more than name. Indeed, they were truly kings of Italy, even the south, for much of the time. The Hohenstaufen struggled to keep the Empire from falling completely to pieces and, in Germany, were successful. In Italy they failed. Germany became disunited completely only with the deaths of Barbarossa and Frederick II, during whose reign it did not receive the attention which could have revived it. Thus, in the Late Middle Ages, German royal power was far weaker than its analogue in England, France, or Castile. By the end of the Middle Ages, Germany was united politically with the Holy Roman Empire. Only after the Peace of Westphalia can we begin to discard the Empire for purposes of historical discussion because the significance of the emperor was in his "fiefs." Srnec 21:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It is still incorrect as the foundations are equal.Which is the matter at hand. 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not say "the Carolingians founded the Fifth French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany". Srnec 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I know it does not say that, otherwise I would still be reverting it at this very moment. My point is that, these much spoken of foundations are the same for Germany and for example the Netherlands.As they were once in the same empire, first East Francia and later the HRE.  Rex  09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You have accused me of falsely equating Germany and the HRE, but you falsely equate East Francia with the same! The first emperor who was also king of East Francia was Charles the Fat, then Arnulf, and then Otto the Great. Until the latter's coronation, the emperorship was mostly an Italian dignity, not an East Frankish one. East Francia was a kingdom, commonly known as Germany, especially after the fall of the Carolingians. Srnec 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, that does not matter in terms of foundations.Which is the subject here.  Rex  17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Romanus IV

I didn't mean that it wasn't documented, I meant that no one ever bothered to give a source for it here. And Gibbon must have had a source, right? Where did he get it from? Adam Bishop 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam Bishop Gibbon cites Nicephorus Bryennius as his source for the terms of the treaty between the Sultan and the Emperor, and Norwich states every chronicler of the period and the Battle, all of them, have some form of the conversation recorded. I simply agree with Norwich, that this conversation is too famous not to mention in some form. I agree with you that it should be sourced, so I used the exact wording in "Decline and Fall," as I have to say that Gibbon is good enough for me, since his citations have never been challanged. old windy bear 23:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Adam Bishop A full account of this conversation is also preserved in Scylitzes (842, p. 700). The Sultan asked Romanus what be would have done if the Romans had won and the Turkish ruler had been captured. The emperor, without any dissimulation, replied, "I would have flogged vou to death!"But 1," said Arslan, "will not imitate you. I have been told that your Christ teaches gentleness and forgiveness of wrong. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble." [6] Again, given the importance of this, and the many sources, it cannot be left out or deleted. But I agree with you it needed better sourcing, which I have done. old windy bear 23:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I want to apologize for the way I kind of slammed into your talkpage earlier on. I should have controlled myself better, but I thought the 2 of you were having some kind of backdoor conspiracy against me.I think that we have a better understanding of eachothers motives now, and that this ought to make a fruitful discussion easier.  Rex  12:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Rex Rex, there is absolutely no need to apologize, as I might have done the same. We certainly have a better understanding now, and I am enjoying discussing this with you. You are welcome here. The free exchange of differing viewpoints is essential, and we can learn from each other. old windy bear 18:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

List of German monarchs

I would like to bring your attention to the article List of German monarchs, where I have had to revert three times in the past day edits by Rex which continually obscure the subject of the article. I do this so that you can revert them if necessary. I think you will find them unacceptable edits on his part. Srnec 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec I agree with this article and list as it is now. I will revert to maintain it if necessary. It is unfortunate when things get to this point, but the article should be what it is, a list of those generally recognized as the monarchs of Germany. old windy bear 19:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 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.

Re: Charles Martel

Actually, we've been fiddling with the importance scale recently, so it's not really based on "true" historical importance anymore. Martel still gets in to "Top", though ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Hey Kirill! If you have a moment, you might look at Flavius Aetius, which I was asked to look at, and then rewrote, (with Ewulp's help in editing). I had to explain your basic philosophy of historical writing on wikipedia, i. e. that it does not matter what we think, original research is barred, and we have to rely on history. As to Martel, I trust your judgment, as I think you know, and am glad he was rated in the top. I understand, I think, the new scale, which measures what people perceive, (is he known in the general public, or to just military historians, et al) rather than genuine historical merit as rated by the historians. I think it probably a better measure for our purposes, frankly. In any event, he still made it, thanks and hello! I remain available for general assignment if you need me anywhere in particular, such as the Mongol Invasion of Central Asia, which actually I thought came out well. In the interim, I go where asked, or continue working on medieval or Carolingian/Roman history mainly.old windy bear 16:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on Aetius. I wish there was an image of him, though, as the article is pretty bland without any; do you know of any that have survived, or is this something we won't be able to get our hands on?

As far as future work, there isn't really anything urgent that I know of, so it's perfectly fine for you to go with whatever topics spark your interest. We tend to need improvements across the board, after all. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Thanks Kirill on the article, but you are dead right and we do need an image of him, and I will try to find one. (It was a shame the one posted was of Count Stilcho, ouch!) I have to give credit to Ewulp, we have sort of worked as a team on many of these articles, I do the research, and he edits it to being less wordy. I will work on the Aetius image, and unless I hear differently from you, continue pretty much working on any topic I am asked to, and the medieval and Roman/Carolingian/Bzyantine/Mongol topics across the board as you suggested. old windy bear 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Aetius proposition

Aetius after death part is really to long. What you say that you make 1 part under name battle of Catalaunian Fields ( legacy of that battle ) and another part with name after death ( situation of Roman Empire in AD 455 ). rjecina 17:13 CET, 22 July 2006.

rjecina Greetings my friend! Excellent Idea, I will do it now, and you can give me feedback on whether or not you like the result, lol! old windy bear 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 18:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

talk I am honored to be asked, and accept. Please let me know what articles you feel I could be best utilized on, and I will begin working on them at once. I thank you again for asking me. old windy bear 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

At this point, we're still forming the WikiProject's organization, so if you'd like to help put the basic structure in place, that would be great. At the moment, I'm in the midst of an excitingly difficult wrangle over the Diocese of Sourozh article. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 19:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

talk I would be delighted to assist in putting the basic structure in place, and will begin putting thoughts down in that regard. I am also going to meander over and look at the wrange over the Diocese of Sourozh article. Thanks again for asking me, I am honored. old windy bear 19:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, make sure you add your name to the member list on the project page! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

talk I have done so! Thanks again, I look forward to contributing and working with you. old windy bear 21:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history Coordinator Elections!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 19:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already commented on some other nominees, so there's no real problem with general comments, in my opinion. (I intend to avoid either outright endorsements or voting in the election, however, to avoid the appearance of favoritism.) Kirill Lokshin 18:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Thanks, that is all I am looking for, because I believe, (and who knows if it will be born out, lol!), that willingness to work in the trenches ought to count for something in this. I agree you are better off avoiding outright endorsements. I am grateful for anything positive! Take care, old windy bear 19:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

J.B. Bury as a dissident historian

Hi Oldwindybear -- I've noticed that you've made several edits emphasizing tha J.B. Bury's opinion on events in the 5th century is not in harmony with mainstream thought. I'm puzzled about your emphasis on this matter, & wonder why you acting in a manner that appears to minimize the judgement of a man who was an esteemed professor at Cambridge. Steven Runciman, for one, was proud of his connection with Bury, & boasted at one point that he was Bury's one student. -- llywrch 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

llywrch Greetings! I am being very careful with my wording, as I hope you notice. I do not, by any means, try to diminish the scholarship of a great historian, but the plain fact is on the issue of the Battle of Chalons he is in a very distinct minority in not believing the battle of macrohistorical importance. Virtually EVERY other great historian is in disagreement with him. I think it vital for readers who are not students of history - which you obviously are - to understand that Bury's viewpoint on those events is a minority one, but because of his stature, is listed anyway. I regard listing his viewpoint, though it is virtually a concert of one, as a compliment to his stature, and his scholarship, rather than an attack on it. Far from minimizing his judgment, I hope it shows that his judgments were so important that though he disagreed with virtually everyone else, Herbert, Ferrill, Creasy, Gibbon, Norwich, that his viewpoint still needs presenting. Personally I believe Bury was a scholar of the first rank, and such a master that his view must be presented, though again, he is in a distinct minority. I have tried to walk a fine line, and hope that it is clear that I am not shortchanging this great scholar, quite the opposite. old windy bear 02:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

I hate to bother you with stuff like this, but in order to try and speed towards a resolution of the problems associated with the List of German monarchs (encapsulated in discussions in which you took part), I have nominated some articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of East Francia / Germany. If you don't mind, take the time and vote or comment there. Thanks. Srnec 17:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Srnec Hi buddy. I have developed a decent relationship with Rex, and I am hoping, after I examine the articles in question, that perhaps a resolution is possible. I am quite ill this afternoon, (never buy supercheap shrimp from a roadside stand, lol!), but will look at them tomorrow, and will first try to talk to Rex, and then go from there. I really hope a settlement of all these disagreements is a reasonable goal. Take care, I am off to go hold the porcelin deity while I vigorously try to rid myself of the on-sale shrimp! Moral of this: if something appears to be too good to be true, it probaly is too good to be true! old windy bear 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Guo Kan

Hmm, yet another person whose existence had been unknown to me. ;-)

Your changes so far look quite good; the article definitely needs the help. My only suggestion at this point would be to start sprinkling footnotes throughout the text; their presence eventually becomes a sine qua non (for a successful FAC nomination, in particular), and it's usually easier to add them as the article is constructed rather than after the fact (in my experience, anyway). Kirill Lokshin 05:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Please don't laugh, but as soon as you indicated the draft was headed in the right direction, that was the next step. Whoever had originally written the article was not an english speaker, and was relaying the folk tales of the Yuan Shi. The next editor caught that, but instead of correcting it, merely added the truth as sort of a "oh well, this and that was not true," which I thought excedingly confusing for our readers. Nor did anyone section anything, it was one big jumbled argument! Now that you have indicated it is headed the right direction, I am beginning footnoting, because not only is it needed, we have at least one editor who is likely to return and dispute anything not comporting with Chinese folklore! I will have it completely footnoted in the next 48 hours. You - as usual - make a superior point though that it best to do it in the draft stage nexttime, sort of as I did with the Aetius or Mongol Invasion of Central Asia rewrites. THANKS, for taking the time to look at it, and I am glad you approve of the direction. I will polish the footnoting and a few other changing today and tomorrow, and it will be ready for me to find an image to add! Thanks again...old windy bear 10:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

lots of Roman pictures

I quote here my email correspondence with the admin of a Dutch reenactment group. http://www.fectio.org.uk/ They have plentyful of Roman military pictures (showing tactics and late antiquity equipment!), but either some of civil life. Currently I work on the Roman military history article and will use some images there. By sharing my source members of the Classic/Antiquity task force can exploit it for their own purposes.

Hi Kurt,

You can add any of the pictures of my site that do not show a credit to a different owner, provided that you add a link to my website. Best let me know which picture you want, it's easy for me to check with the owners.

Cheers, Robert Vermaat Fectio http://www.fectio.org.uk/

   From: "kurt Scholz" <kurt.scholz@gmx.de>
   To: fectio@hotmail.com <fectio@hotmail.com>
   Subject: Pictures on your homepage for wikipedia
   Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:45:49 +0200
   >Dear ladies and gentlemen
   >
   >For the wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org) we desperately need some pictures of the Roman military, especially during the late antiquity. I currently work on this topic and your homepage is my best source of depictions. We are chronically low on any historic accurate images. It is likely that there is also an interest in other pictures of Roman civil life reenactment and your site provides plentyful. Therefore I ask you for your consent to use pictures from your site on wikipedia.org in the English, Dutch, German, French, Polish, etc. version.
   >
   >With regards
   >Yours Kurt Scholz

thanks a million! old windy bear 18:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agincourt

OK, military longbow archers were trained to hold several (at least about 8) arrows in the air and shoot at least 12 accurate shots per minute. The time of a charge within effective range was too short to launch enough arrows directly. Every cavalry charge had to use a certain acceleration scheme to achieve optimum speed at the moment of impact (cavalry tactics). So archers created a hedge of arrows in the air to come down at the cavalry at the right spots during their charge. Timing and calculating the distances for the arrowfire were very important and the archers (mostly Welsh) were discipled and had a tight command structure. The vulnerable spots of heavy cavalry and knights were the chainmail at the thights and his horse (protected with armor).

The French army there is too big. France could at maximum mount 4000 heavy cavalry in battle. Divide the numbers and casualties with 5-10 and it makes sense. Any army with more than 10,000 men would have starved (reliable paylists of other campaigns provide this info).

In the crossbow article we pointed out the rate of fire, so calculate the crossbowmen divided by 3 and each team fires 8 shots per minute against 12 shots of a single archer. The crossbows are only skirmisher protecting the deployment of the heavy infantry. Heavy infantry was the French magic against the English longbow. They were better protected than the horses and withstood arrowfire while approaching slowly in closed formations.

Problem at Agincourt was the mud. The heavy cavalry charge failed because (slows down) and the heavy infantry approaching was handicapped in movement. So the Welsh light infantry used their secondary weapons, polearms and long warhammers to harrass the French infantry and using their quicker movement on muddy ground to attack and retreat at will. If you ever have the chance of watching a team of trained polearmfighters you will be impressed. Good night. Wandalstouring 23:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hun composite bow

You could contribute a detail no historian mentions here: the Hun bow is a composite bow. layers of horn glued together, manufacture takes a year, usually with strong skin glue. This glue is dissolves easily in contact with water, humidity posses a great problem. Their descendants, the Hungarians, plunder all across Germany but never went to France with their composite bows.

You can make your disagreement more convenient by adding something that everybody agrees upon in the field of archery. Make some research about production and usage of composite bows, especially the Hun bow. Have fun and the wiki articles on these bows really need expansion. Wandalstouring 21:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring I will do that, (I enjoy the field of archery, so it will be fun), and thank you. You are obviously well aware one very powerful theory among military historians for the Mongol failure to procede into the heart of Europe was that their compound bows would not have faired well in the climate. Of course, that is countered by Subutai's making detailed plans to invade all of it when he was recalled with the Princes of the Blood after the Great Khan Ogedei's death. By the way, I know you had mentioned some people had said you had been rude, but there has certainly been no rudeness in my interaction with you - you are extremely knowledgable, willing to share that knowledge, not at all condesending, and very helpful. Your help is appreciated. old windy bear 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Never forget the Mongols knew waterresistant fishglue (reportedly used for impregnating their leatherarmor). The Huns and the Saracens used watersoluable skinglue for their horn-composite bows. Wandalstouring 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently I need an independent viewer

In the Military history of ancient Rome discussion we currently need and independent opinion. It is especially in the sections: Appraisal and Assessment of the Roman military (discussion) / Finished restructuring the article

Would be nice if you could come around. Wandalstouring 22:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)