User talk:81.129.168.106

January 2009

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Battle of Dunbar (1296). Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. 64.170.126.122 (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made a 'Joke' edit, I have merely altered the campaign box to reflect both the record material of the event and scholarship of the period. There is no material to indicate that the main bodies of either army were involved at all, indeed King John was at Haddington with the main body of the Scottish force and the record material does not indicate that King Edward was present with the main body of the English army. heavy cavalry actions (in the total absence of infantry) were the 'norm' of 13th/14th century European warfare; battles of manouvre were very rare indeed. CB.

You're probably right about that. I suggest discussing it on the talk page, if you want the article to reflect this. Other editors are likely to revert your changes, otherwise. (By the way, to reply to a comment, add a : before what you write.) 64.170.126.122 (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you're adding a bibliography. Here's the citation templates. They'll hopefully make your work a bit easier. Also, creating a user account will give you benefits that you won't have as an anonymous. Feel free to drop by my talk page if you have any questions. 64.170.126.122 (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Battle of Dunbar (1296). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. timsdad ^(talk) 12:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reverts are supported by the material of the period. I appreciate that relatively few people will have made a study of that material - the Latin and French can be a bit of a struggle and the paleography can be - to say the least - challenging!

None the less, the material is pretty clear to those who study this sort of thing. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate a general engagement at Dunbar. Neither King was present, there is no evidence of infantry combat at all and the action was clearly brief and decisive - if only because of the incompetence of the Scottish commanders. If Wikipedai is to be 'serious' then it must reflect WHAT WE KNOW, not modern folklore or nationalist sentiment. As for 'banning' corrections....can Timsdad (a brilliant name by the way) provide any record material to support the '40,000/12,000' figures in the campaign box? If so, I'm sure that medievalists will be very glad to see it since none of us are aware of it's existence. If he cannot provide such evidence, why force in (un)corrections? If his reverts are not suypportable from contemporary evidence, should he not be banned from making untenable reverts? If so, how would that be acheived? CB.

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Battle of Dunbar (1296). timsdad ^(talk) 12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.